Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Current events/Canada/archive1

message: I've thought a lot about this, and I came to the conclusion that this 'portal' can't be promoted. Like the Main Page is to mainspace, so Current events pages are to portalspace – they are an anomaly. They are not portals as currently defined or generally implemented on Wikipedia (this is not say the term 'portal' does not describe them, but insofar as portals on Wikipedia are concerned, they differ). They certainly do not meet the thrust of the criteria, and I've not seen anyone argue it does. It has merits aplenty from a design point of view, and certainly, it should be held up to other current events pages as an example to follow. But a featured portal it is not. I realise that this view may not be shared by others, hence my explanation here. If you strongly dispute my action, please raise it here.--cj | talk 12:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the main contributor and nominator of the Portal:Current events/Canada, I am obviously biased, however, as an editor and a person I am dedicated to upholding some principals. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but even more than that, it does not belong to any one person; it is a wiki. WP:FPC was designed as a place where editors would vote and determine through general concensus whether a portal should become featured. A trustee or a guardian, you (User:Cyberjunkie), were to oversee, determine whether general concensus, and close candidates. I whole heartedly think that it's not your place to have the power to vito a unanimous vote, many of which are regular editors on Portals and WP:FPC, through your own opinion. Not only have you made a decision of your own about this portal, but of all Current event portals. Featured candidates have many similiarities to law trials in where previous trials greatly affect the decision of future trials. They are used as examples. I ask you sincerely, what example are you setting here? Is it fair for you to determine the fate of this portal and all current events portals on your own, or even against concensus? If this remains, you will have failed the point of WP:FPC, what a wiki is, the ideals of Wikipedia, and the value and opinions of all those who voted on this FPC and in general. Mkdwtalk 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with cj at this point because this nomination is not a portal rather than a supage of the Portal:Current events. Wikipedia is not a news website. I do not think other than the main portal for the news really deserves a seperate portal. I suppose it would be better if you propose a featured portal scheme on Wikinews. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT section 6 states, "News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information." Please note that it does not say that it is not a news website, but 'should not offer first-hand news'. None of the stories are a primary source and wikipedia has several articles about current events and past events, for example all the trial articles. The fact that it is technically a sub-page should have no bearing on its FPC when all the FPC criteria only has to do with content and not namespaces. Also, if you collectively posted all the stories from all 10 current events portals the page lengths would be unsightly and as per standard on Wikipedia would naturally be broken down into separate topics -- to which they have. The Portal:Current events/Canada could easily be moved to Portal:Canadian current events or Portal:Current events Canada. Mkdwtalk 13:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Mkdw, your position is understandable, however, I must respectfully disagree with several of your suppositions. You state that Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates was "designed as a place where editors would vote". This is incorrect, both as a matter of fact (it was not designed such) and as a matter of policy (Wikipedia is not a democracy). It is a forum for debate to determine whether a portal meets the criteria for promotion. I feel – wholeheartedly – that this was not occurring here, and as, in your words, a "guardian" to this process, I could not promote it in good faith. I realise that in closing this candidacy as failed, the focus is now on that action itself, rather than the merits of my reasoning – I'd ask that this digression be avoided. To aid in this, I've re-opened the debate and presented my position. It should be understood, however, that in the absence of any counter arguments based on the criteria (ie, valid arguments), consensus will not be in favour of promotion. --cj | talk 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As an original supporter of this portal, I hate to say it, but I believe CJ is correct.  After reexamining Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria, the portal does not meet all of these.  Such as It showcases the best of Wikipedia's content for a particular area and encourages contribution to that area.  The nature of current events doesn't always coincide with wikipedias best content(very rarely indeed).  And it doesn't include most of recommended guidelines. I like the idea of promoting this portal, and for a current events portal, it is exceptional, but following criteria, it does not add up.  Joe  I 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)