Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawks PDX


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hawks PDX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ORG same editor has been sprinkling numerous run of the mill businesses and organizations in the Portland area. Like all the other ones, general notability is highly questionable. Graywalls (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon and spare everyone time discussing deletion. I wouldn't have reverted if you simply redirected the page. AfD does not need to be the first action to propose redirecting or merging content. By nominating this article for deletion you're forcing editors to spend (sometimes lots of) time discussing sourcing and notability when a simple redirect would be just fine, quick and easy. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 00:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to take another look at the article now that more sources have been added? Or do you still believe a redirect to be best? --Kbabej (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , To be honest, I'm just going to see how this plays out. I'm not against keeping the article, but I think we should redirect over deleting altogether when possible. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out these magazines mention Hawks PDX. Issuu.com is a bit difficult to navigate in terms of finding the specific mentions of the subject but I believe these should be taken into consideration as possible sourcing as well. I've posted this link on the article's talk page for future reference. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to Keep based on the Issuu.com sources. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no way I'm going to inspect every listed item manually, but did you bother to investigate the context and extent of coverage? https://issuu.com/pqmonthly/docs/januaryfebruary_2014, page 28-29. The extent of coverage is that they are purchased an ad to be placed in an extremely ad-bloated in special market segment targeted publication that funded itself entirely through ad-revenue, therefore, anyone who paid for ad space can basically get their name placed. This doesn't even count as a source. "PQ Monthly was a free monthly LGBTQ newspaper and online publication for Oregon and southwest Washington, published in Portland". Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said all these should be added, I only said they were possible sources. I disagree about PQ Monthly being inappropriate sourcing. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So few newspapers and magazines exist outside of being "ad-bloated" and having "funded itself entirely through ad-revenue" that that is not an argument — consider Vanity Fair and The New York Times, just for instance. Nonetheless, I agree with deletion because it's just a bath house, one of many, and not individually notable (that I am aware of). AHampton (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

--Kbabej (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:AUD on WP:ORG, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Willamette Week and PQ Monthly are regional, not solely local. It states "at least one" is needed, and here we have two (possibly three, if you count TripSavvy, which is national. I just don't know anything about that site.) Below is a breakdown of the sources currently on the page, none of which are "simple listings or compilations" (ie: phone numbers and street address, etc.) Each is a review, excluding Oregon Bears, which covers events and services offered.
 * comment interesting. where did you find this? Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * under WP:ORGCRITE. Given that there are now 5x the amount of sources on the article, what are your thoughts? WP:HEYMANN? Or not enough? --Kbabej (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These exact sources do not appear there and I would like to know who evaluated the criteria. You, or a noticeboard discussion? I'm unable to find any discussion on "PQ Monthly" in noticeboard discussions and Google shows me this source is predominantly used for Portland articles. One factor is factual reliability and another is their impact on notability. I would say a paper like Baker City Herald passes factual reliability. More than one articles about a venue in Baker City Herald, Statesman Journal and the Oregonian for something that is actually about venue might make it notable. What I mean here is that an article about venue because a car drove through it or a robbery there doesn't really cut it. Willamette Week is only distributed in the tricounty area. (Mult, Wash, Clack) so I would call it a LOCAL paper. I'd agree WW as reliable on facts, but I don't believe it would meets the notability required at the level for WP:ORG. Oh and it's only an alternative newspaper Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Sorry I wasn't clear on the table. I got the table from WP:ORGCRITE, but the assessment of the sources is solely mine. I would posit PQ Monthly is regional. On their site, they describe themselves as serving Oregon and SW Washington. They also have a San Francisco section. That wouldn't be considered local. As for Willamette Week, they cover all of Oregon news, but I'm not sure where distribution covers. --Kbabej (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another editor felt WP:ORG doesn't have to be met if general notability is met, but I posit that's mistaken given the explanation in WP:ORGCRIT specifically says the difference is to deter MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONALS from trying to game the rules. https://mediakit.wweek.com/ and https://www.wweek.com/find-a-paper/ I think it's safe to call it Portland Metro with emphasis on Portland proper contents. Graywalls (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * noting that above table is a personal assessment by Kbabej and not derived from noticeboard discussions like sources evaluated in references reliable sources supplementGraywalls (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's quite obvious to any experienced editor. No one is stating the above table is from an RSP. --Kbabej (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - per WP:AUD on WP:ORG as shown in the review of the sources above.Thsmi002 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * generic comment The definition of regional is foggy. Willamette Week's paper print stands have a smaller area coverage than TriMet (the local metropolitan area transit system) and the focus of coverage is mostly Portland proper. This paper, along with the Portland Mercury are alternative papers and I don't think they carry much much weight in building notability. Graywalls (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * can you show a policy that states alternative newspapers don't "carry much weight in building notability"? Or is that just your opinion? --Kbabej (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of such specific phrasing from a policy. I've read essays WP:BOMBARD, WP:MASK and policies WP:GNG and WP:NORG. So as I see it, meeting the minimum requirements steers towards not running foul of automatic disqualification but meeting them do not give them a blanket pass for inclusion. From GNG: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."
 * I continue to see a load of stitched up routine discussions in local papers in sections that uh.. talks about routine "things to do" type of stuff that do nothing as far as establishing reliable evidence of notability. WP:bombard Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The alternative newspaper coverage doesn't fall under "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories", so that policy doesn't cover what we're talking about. --Kbabej (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC) comment on sources as it exists now: I maintain my position, **strong delete**, because: * Ref 1: very local. WP:AUD
 * Ref 2: special interest. WP:AUD
 * Ref 3/4: routine and trivial. WP:SIGCOV
 * ref 5: dubious source/special interest sharing basic primitive fact about when it opened. Does not indicate notability. Essentially irrelevant source.
 * Ref 6: local interest covering local interest for local audience. WP:AUD

Above lacked specificity. Bathhouse blog: dubious source/special interest sharing basic primitive fact about when it opened. Does not indicate notability. Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rushall (free lance local writer) / WW WP:AUD WP:SIGCOV
 * Rushall (free lance local writer) / WW (I spent a night...): WP:AUD
 * PSU Vanguard: very local, very limited audience. WP:AUD
 * PQ Monthly: special interest WP:AUD
 * Rushall (free lance local writer) / WW : local interest covering local interst.  WP:AUD WP:SIGCOV
 * ISSUU search result: unsurprisingly, mention of interst specific venues mentioned within interest specific magazines. Exactly like finding hobby shops mentioned in hobby magazines, gun shops in gun magazines, tuning shops in car magazines, etc.
 * You've made your position known. There's been some rearranging of content, so I'm not sure what "Ref 1", etc., refers to any longer. I noticed you asked here about Willamette Week specifically. Can you clarify the sources above? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating your comment above. You asked about Willamette Week here and were told Willamette Week is reliable. You keep throwing around all these abbreviations, but at the end of the day the subject has been profiled by multiple reliable sources. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:RSOPINION Reliable in the asserted statement is different from reliably establishing implicit notability. In the case of the particular author in particular sources, we're talking about a "a local freelance writer who likes to open windows. He writes about culture, food, and gay stuff." I would consider his evaluation an opinion piece and question the inclusion. His mention likely doesn't really increase general notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, and the article notes the description is provided by Willamette Week's Jack Russell, which is compliant with WP:RSOPINION. I'm open to changing the article's wording, but I don't agree the sources are not acceptable. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, no idea what you're talking about re: Issuu.com sources (Just Out, PQ Monthly, etc), which are also considered reliable. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That Rushall freelancer also contributes to HuffPost. See what is said about HuffPost, and Forbes contributor source articles. Again some freelancer's opinion is just that and I dispute your position that it's inclusion worthy. WP:RSP. This article is on organization/company, the most spam prone category meaning it's got to not fail neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Even passing them isn't a definitive guarantee of inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an AfD discussion. Please state your justification. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have, and I don't owe you anything. I'll let others weigh in, thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting back on the contents. Reading one of Rashall article, I read his comment: "So I talked to my friend T, who used to work at Hawks PDX".So the freelance writer who contributed to the article approached the place where his friend used to work. This doesn't appear entirely independent of the article subject. Not about WW, but because of author's relatively close connection to the source. You posited "I am changing my vote to Keep based on the Issuu.com sources." I'm not going to waste the time to check every single search result, but, I checked a few. In the El Hispanic, it was a thank you mention for being an advertiser/sponsor. In PQ Monthly, the primary mention of Hawks is limited to a routine announcement of hosting site for STD testing. I'm surprised that you, as a self announced experienced editor suggest such search result as a sign of notability. Graywalls (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm done here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * weak keep I have found the schema in 's comment a useful way of approaching the various factors.  And they are the factors, because the standard is in fact significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. But in using it, I don't see that it can be expressed as a yes/no decision--sources of of various degrees of reliability and independence, coverage van be more or less significant, and even secondary is not always well-defined. We could I suppose come up with a 1-10 scale for each, and a way of weighting them,   but there is still a problem that things are of a variable degree of notability, and it is very common here to have the alternatives , keep-slightly notable and that's good enough or, with exactly the same state of facts, delete, only slightly notable and that's not good enough.  We in practice require different degrees for different subjects, and that's a function of what each ofus thinks the encyclopedia should be like.  My own view is that we should require very clear notability for local establishments without historic status because of the weakness of all sources and the tendency to promotionalism .  But someone else could rationally say that   our attention to local social places is an important niche for WP,  I note this place is only  7 years old., but perhaps that is rather long in context.  In the end, that's the basis of my !vote for keep.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 2 April 2019 (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.