Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Hotel does not appear to meet notability guidelines. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Oregon. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Why would you think this? I quickly and easily found several sources that suggest the building is notable. The architect is notable and the article could be expanded with details about the building's design and construction, ownership and other tenants, and demolition. Not to mention, some of the building's arches were converted into a gazebo structure that's included on the city's Historic Resource Inventory. This is an obvious keep. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am glad you found some sources and enhanced the article. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @OiYoiYoink Thanks! Do you still believe the topic is not notable? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe write more than a single sentence with a single source when creating articles and you wouldn't have to sigh on your talk page so much. These nominations aren't so unnecessary if they result in the expansion that should have happened in the first place. Reywas92Talk 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You've said this to me ad nauseam. Call me old fashioned, but I think WP:BEFORE should be followed instead of just jumping to AfD at every opportunity. Also, I would appreciate if you would take my user talk page off your watchlist because you clearly follow me around and target my work, even when I have asked you to leave me alone many times. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep The sources currently in the article don't show any notability whatsoever (listicles typically don't count), it's usually easy to track that information down for notable buildings. And we definitely have lots of crufty Portland business articles on this site that we keep because of local consensus. There's a photo in the book Vanishing Portland but the caption isn't really significant coverage. I may have missed historical articles though - if I have, please ping me. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer You have! Check out this book. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern with that book is that it's not necessarily discriminate - it talks about a number of different hotels in Portland. I've written articles on several demolished hotels across the world now, and I always look at what newspapers of the time have said about the hotel in order to demonstrate notability. The only one we have at the moment is that it hosted a convention, which does not demonstrate notability. There should be articles about its opening and closing, especially during the period in which it was built, which will require some sort of source search. At the moment, it's sort of pieced together on the back of sugar packets. I'd be happy to change to a keep if better sourcing can be found. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer There are dozens of sources at the Oregonian archives accessible via Multnomah County Library. Thousands if you count solely passing mentions. I'll add some to the entry as I have time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please let me know when you've added a couple, will change to keep if they're sufficiently substantial (such as the opening.) SportingFlyer  T · C  23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I added "Hotel demise - end of an era" already, but I probably won't be able to add more tonight. Other things to do! Thanks for being willing to revisit --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed to keep, discovered the Oregonian quoted a contemporaneous article in a discussion on its closure which clearly showed significant coverage like you would see for a notable early 20th century demolished hotel. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep- the article now meets WP:GNG after the latest round of edits. I retract my prior delete vote. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Delete- this hotel is not notable. See the sources- it's just listings. The sources do not show why it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:MILL. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate at all. Thanks for the drive-by delete vote. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is duly noted. And for you to claim that it is a drive-by delete vote is highly inappropriate. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is this just a "listing"? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't show that it's notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. I'm going to move on. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the expansion of the page and sources occurring since the nomination. Now easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources added seem sufficient to keep the article now. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it me or does it seem like a lot of Portland companies and business articles get nominated for AFDs compared to organizations in other major cities in the U.S.? Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My perception is that, who has 200+ featured and good articles and lists to their name, has a strong interest in creating articles about Portland (Oregon)–related content (among other topics), and often creates more articles than they have time and energy to fully develop. Many of those articles are so short and stubby that they attract the attention of people who, for whatever reason, do not perform a full WP:BEFORE search but instead go straight to AFD. Why they do this is not for me to explain. All of that said, some of Another Believer's article topics have failed my cursory WP:BEFORE searches, which leads me to think that there are probably some topics of questionable notability among this prolific editor's thousands of contributions, expansions, and creations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP, my sense is Portland has more local businesses with articles than probably should exist on here with sourcing only local to Portland. But this is a long closed business, and large early 20th-century hotels were often notable... SportingFlyer  T · C  15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the excellent expansion by Another Believer, WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep the new expansion has made it into an article worth keeping, it passes WP:GNG along with the newly added sources. TheTankman (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Now it's been shown through sources that the topic is notable and passes the GNG. The nomination was made when the article consisted of a couple of sentences and a single source. WP:BEFORE suggests a fairly basic Google search is sufficient. The search results generated will not be identical for everyone as the searcher's location and other factors are taken into account in the results presented, so it shouldn't be assumed that a proper BEFORE was not carried out. Rupples (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per SportingFlyer, Rupples and others. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.