Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentrification of 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom - no rationale for deletion after a revert to a clean version. Editing at late night caused me to confuse "created in August" with "maintenance tag added in August" so I forgot to check the edit history. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Gentrification of Portland, Oregon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An essay that says almost nothing about the nominal topic of gentrification in Portland, Oregon. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 04:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment an older version may be acceptable; it's still a one-paragraph stub but that is a massive improvement over the current mess. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Just Google "Gentrification Portland, Oregon" -- you'll see there are plenty of sources. Also, this nomination offers no assessment of secondary coverage or lack thereof. Feel free to revert the article to an older version. I've reverted the article to an older version (leaving the AfD tag on top). This article just needs work, not to be deleted. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 04:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject has been covered several times in The New York Times (examples from 2018 and 2008) and Washington Post (example from 2015), including a book review about a novel where gentrification in the city apparently plays a key role (I have not read it, so I'll trust the reviewer).  Sounder Bruce  04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is clear coverage in RS, even in the revised stub. Please read AFD is not cleanup before nominating additional messy articles, and please withdraw this nomination to reduce unnecessary work for closers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've reverted to the version you say 'may be acceptable'. If you don't think sourcing is a concern here, please withdraw the nomination, otherwise you're wasting editors' time.  Another Believer  ( Talk ) 05:06, 24 September 2021 (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.