Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port of Poulsbo


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Port of Poulsbo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot identify sufficient numbers of independent reliable non-local sources covering the topic in depth, indicating it is not notable under WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Izno (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment this is a strange one. Is the Port of Poulsbo just the port (the harbour) for the City of Poulsbo, Washington? If so, then we're talking about a place and should apply WP:GEOLAND, right? By way of an example, the city of Newcastle, Australia is a city, and the Port of Newcastle is the seaport within Newcastle Harbour. In turn, it is operated by the Newcastle Port Authority. The authority needs to pass WP:GNG (or WP:NCORP, depending on your proclivities), but the city, port and port authority are all different entities. In this instance we have both a Poulsbo Yacht Club and Poulsbo Port Commission (two other organisations involved).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw evidence that the use of the phrase "Port of Poulsbo" might refer to an actual port, but I don't really think that matters because I'm pretty sure the current article about a specific marina. The current article doesn't say what it is in the lead, but there is a "Port of Poulsbo Marina" a bit into the article, and the user who created it seems to have been interested in marinas. Either way, what's there and what I saw in the reliable sources didn't indicate that this particular topic as-written is something worth preserving. I think it might be reasonable to delete and red link it for a possible new article or possibly redirect to the city for expansion later. Izno (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article might be about a marina but it doesn't reference a specific company that runs it and the content should probably be focused on the location. Incidental reference can be made to any organisation involved, but I don't think the subject here needs to pass WP:NCORP; it's a place, not a company.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , just to be clear, I've seen your other nominations of non-notable commercial marina operations and believe you're right in each of those instances. I think this article just happened to get it wrong. They may have intended to write about the marina (within the port) but have written about the port itself, which I think is notable. Port of Poulsbo Marina would not be notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. I've done some work to clarify that the article is about the geographical location and not any particular commercial enterprise responsible for its management. Its owner, from what I can tell, is the city of Poulsbo itself.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". The port is a legally recognised place (in fact, it has a specific, City-appointed commission), and the sources confirm it is populated, both on land, and with "liveaboards".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article describes the entity/organization, as the geographic location is not independently notable. It's a bog-standard public marina that has one notable article in The Seattle Times but otherwise only routine mentions.  Sounder Bruce  07:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It did (incorrectly). It doesn't anymore.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep (HEY) per GEO, satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as improved. BD2412  T 06:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is a notable geographic location.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 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.