Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Portland


 * 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__. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Portland

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. 2 of the 5 sources relate to a racial incident at the hotel. Other sources are mainly local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business,  and Oregon.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are refs but they are very small time and don't push this over GNG. Desertarun (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). Yes, the article needs to be expanded and 2 of the 5 sources (at time of nomination) were about a racial incident. On the article's talk page, I've shared numerous sources about the incident (BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, Essence, etc). Additionally, there have been other incidents and the hotel has been credited for helping develop the city's eastside. I've added many more sources to the article, including travel guides (Fodor's, Moon Publications) and other newspapers and magazines with reviews of the property. I've not even started with the Oregonian archives, which will surely yield many more returns. This entry should be expanded, not deleted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found, and added, a source indicating the hotel was the second-largest in the entire state in the 1980s, which makes it much more notable than the article's previous text on that point, that it was only "one of the five largest in Portland". I have also added several more newspaper articles as sources, most of which are specifically about this hotel. – SJ Morg (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and article improvements! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since its nomination, this article's sourcing has been significantly improved, and it meets WP:NORG, thanks to WP:HEY efforts by and . — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has sources and is relatively well-written. However, it feels like the editors involved in this article have some relationship with the hotel. In addition, the majority of the sources that provide significant coverage are local which does not meet the standard for notability. Business Wire republishes press releases and, therefore, is not an independent source. The Ebony link is not significant coverage. So, the entire case to keep relies on whether or not an entry in a travel guidebook qualifies a hotel for notability. I think not as this is more of a directory listing than an actual article--and Wikipedia does not exist to duplicate content from travel guidebooks or other such directories. Yes, these books are qualified secondary sources but do not make something notable on their own. I suggest merging some of this content into DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel as this article is currently longer than the article about the entire chain. Rublamb (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please not accuse me or User:SJ Morg of having "some relationship with the hotel"? That's not necessary. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 22:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Apologies. What I should have said was that sections of the article read as promotional. Rublamb (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to identify specifically problematic text on the article's talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The news event mentioned on the talk page is about this particular location, not the chain, and certainly meets requirements for widespread, major, independent coverage. Perhaps not the sort of coverage they want, but hey... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2019 racial profiling incident is the last paragraph of the History section. Were you intending to !vote? — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability claimed as the (former) largest hotel in the state. Refs for that are independent although not online (newspaper.com's search is utterly useless). They are borderline local, but that alone seems to meet the bar for me. It's the several worldwide-noteworthy events that occurred that push it over. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment:  Sources do no have to be online; that is not a problem. The issue is that the article's significant coverage is local. Refering to WP:BRANCH, "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Since we don't have substantial coverage outside of the hotel's area, it does not meet the standard for notability. Rublamb (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I encourage you to read The Oregonian article, which explains the paper's circulation exceeds the "local area", and meets the criteria for regional or statewide circulation. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The paper is the largest in the state, and the second in Cascadia as a whole. Saying this is too local for NOTE is like saying we shouldn't use the Toronto Star as a source on anything that happened in Toronto. The copious numbers of mentions as far away as the UK meets the criterion for "reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area". I reiterate my keep. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sourcing is there to pass GNG. Along with The Oregonian, The Columbian out of Washington State also had a few articles published. Also found an AP article from when Red Lion bought them, that was published in other publications in WA and OR. WikiVirusC (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Contributions by Another Believer and SJ Morg have significantly improved the quality and sourcing of the article since nomination. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Rublamb (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Way to ignore the other 30 sources shared on the talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reviewing existing souces is the typical starting point. The 30 potential sources are about the racist incident, the resulting court case, or the hotel chain's reponse to the incident. As indicated above, there already are enough sources to determine the notibility of this incident. However, the article in question is about the hotel rather than the racist incident, which is only featured in a couple of sentences. Rublamb (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2023 (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.