Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland, Oregon in popular culture


 * 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 no consensus. --Core desat 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Large collection of unrelated and irrelevant trivia. They only sentence that is referenced belongs in the main article (where I have moved it). --Eyrian 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Before I !vote I'd like more information. The article was split off from Portland, Oregon in August of 2005, probably to serve the purpose of the keeping such trivia out of the Portland article. Many of the items can be added to the proper categories such as Category:Oregon writers, and deleted, but I would welcome suggestions on a possible page rename and other cleanups. Though other stuff exists isn't a great argument, I'd like to see some examples of similar culture-related articles that are better written. Is something like List of fiction set in Chicago acceptable? Some of us have talked about moving this content to an article about Oregon culture in general and expanding it. Latr, Katr 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This discussion was already going on at Talk:Portland, Oregon in popular culture and is now continuing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon. I appreciate the effort to bring this up, but I think we have a pretty strong crew these days at WP:Oregon that will come up with a good solution; I'd prefer to see this "speedy kept," and let the processes currently underway take their course. -Pete 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Re:References--If the individual articles mention a connection to Oregon, is it necessary to also cite the source in this list/article? Latr, Katr 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The problem is that uncited entries are caught between the two halves of the trivia pincer. If it's unreferenced, either there's original research making analysis, or there's no analysis, in which case there's no relevance ("this location was featured in a film", by itself, isn't relevant). --Eyrian 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Eyrian on this point - it will be a valid question if we decide to keep the pages at all, but for now it only complicates the decision…let's leave this for latr. -Pete 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eyrian, can you please reply to my point about keeping the discussion centralized? It's very confusing having it go on in three separate pages. Is this AfD necessary at this point? I have no problem with an AfD if it results from the discussion, but at this moment it seems to be unnecessarily complicating the decision process. -Pete 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think centralization is necessary. This article as it stands needs to go. If people want to refactor it into the appropriate articles (via categorization, lists, etc.) that's fine, and they've got plenty of time to do that. The refactoring can be discussed elsewhere. What needs to be be discussed here is whether this current article should stay. --Eyrian 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. -Pete 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per healthy and productive process currently underway at discussion pages noted above. It seems to me the nomination springs more from a desire to make a point than to improve the encyclopedia or the collaboration that supports it. -Pete 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, there's no point I'm trying to prove (though, incidentally, what do you think it is?). I think this article doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia, and just serves as a list that accumulates trivia. It's regrettable that people have invested a great deal of good-faith effort in this, but it's simply not an encyclopedic entry. --Eyrian 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Having re-read WP:POINT, let me clarify that I am not accusing Eyrian of disruptive editing, nor am I basing my vote on that policy. Though I generally dislike the invocation of this policy, I guess this is a case of ignore all rules. The article serves an important function merely by its existence, by making it possible to divert disruptive edits from newbies that would otherwise provoke unnecessary disputes. Thus, it allows us to both be more welcoming to newcomers, and keep important articles like Oregon and Portland, Oregon relatively stable and spam-free. I believe that is enough to justify the existence of the articles, but some of the content justifies it as well: the Portland connections of some items, like Beverly Cleary and The Simpsons, are significant and widely-reported. I agree that the article could use some improvement, but strongly disagree that its current flaws justify deletion. -Pete 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Better here than there" doesn't work as a reason for keeping an article. As I now watch Portland, Oregon, I'll gladly volunteer to excise trivia as it attempts to creep in. --Eyrian 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But the Portland connections of The Simpsons and Beverly Cleary, and a number of other subjects, are notable, being the subject of stories in reliable sources. I'm curious - is there another article in Category:Lists of films by location that you might recommend as a model for improving this article to an acceptable standard? I really don't see a problem with the article that would come close to justifying deletion. It's far from perfect, but it can be improved - and IS being improved. -Pete 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, put those pair of small things in the main article. Two entries doesn't justify a spin-off article. Further, since when is "wholly unreferences" not an argument for deletion? --Eyrian 23:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting a couple of items in the main Portland article would be fine, but it wouldn't solve the problem overall. "Notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia" and "Notable enough for inclusion in the Portland, Oregon article" are different standards, and there will always be items that meet the former, but not the latter. Where exactly the line lies will always be somewhat controversial, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 * "Wholly unreferenced" is a red herring - references for many of these items are already cited in the linked articles; I'm not sure there's consensus about whether they should be repeated in the list, but if you think they should be there, just move them over - problem solved.
 * Once again - are there other articles/lists that you think could serve as a model for this page – or do you believe that all the items in Category:Lists of films by location should be deleted? -Pete 23:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & delete despite its title, this is not really a popular culture article as we're used to here in Afd land. This is a mish-mash of famous people from Portland (merge to the main article, or the arts subarticle, or have a see also and categorize them, perhaps), books associated with Portland (delete; in 2 I checked because I doubted the association, no reference to "Portland" was found in the entire article, so whatever association is probably nonexistent or tangential at best, like the author lived there), a bunch of films shot in and around Portland (for the ones where Portland wasn't just passed off as "Springfield" or some unnamed burgh, a new list for List of films by location category mentioned above might work), the TV section is a little of the famous people mixed with real trivia (gosh someone on some show thought she was going to Portland), music groups from Portland (merge to the main article or the arts subarticle), songs with Portland ties (delete; the only song with an article's only tie to Portland is the band's ties). Carlossuarez46 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe rename to Culture in Portland, Oregon.--JForget 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just added full citations to reliable sources for every single author and filmmaker listed on the page. Every article cited mentions the subject's connection to Portland; in some cases, the entire article concerns itself the impact the subject has had on Portland, or their ties with the city. I don't doubt there are items that are not so notable - for instance, that many of the bands should be deleted. But I believe this proves beyond doubt that this article as a whole should not be deleted. Further objections? -Pete 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Total junk, widdle down and merge to main article. There is no reason to have this. Biggspowd 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Listify on model of List of people from Chicago, List of fiction set in Chicago, and List of films, operas, and plays set in Boston. Probably would require some culling and splitting into separate lists. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is one of the more organized "culture" articles, and I will assume good faith in we editors who will keep the list from spinning out-of-control with non-notable information. pinotgris  02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have added 16 citations for some of the more notable items on the list. I believe these citations demonstrate that the list is not merely a bunch of trivia about Portland, but provides an introduction to numerous subjects that tell the story of Portland. In this way, this article is very different from, say, "Ferris Bueller in pop. culture." Elliott Smith has been described by a mainstream publication as not only reflecting, but adding to the history/culture of the city; similar things have been said about Chuck Pahlaniuk, and others. I reiterate my strong keep vote, on the grounds that it's a pretty good article that is getting better, on an important subject. -Pete 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as the current title is misleading. A list of people with a common defining characteristic is encyclopedic, especially if their connection to the culture of the city is given context. For instance, what I know about Portland is limited to a subset of these artists. This is a legitimate subtopic of Portland, Oregon (though putting it under #Arts and culture seems more fitting; or Oregon if it gets expanded). There is a dedicated editor working on it, so no need to worry about maintenance issues. –Pomte 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopediac list-- Sef rin gle Talk 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename, as this is more of a list than an article. Then listify, merge and categorize as necessary. I agree that the article as it stands is a mishmash of lists, but lists in and of themselves are not unencyclopedic, so this should be split into several related lists per Akhilleus, with content merged with other articles or categorized and deleted as needed. Almost everything on these lists can be referenced as having a Portland connection, those things that can't be or are true trivia (characters passing through the place, etc.) can be removed. Knowing most people who vote keep in Afds do very little of the suggested work, I pledge to make sure the prescribed work gets done. Katr67 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still feel that the issues of whether and how to rename the article, and modify its content, is better left to the article's talk page, where it had been under discussion for several weeks prior to this AfD nomination. Why rush it, and why make the decision on a page (here) where many Portland-oriented editors may never go? I think we have this under control. Current proposals include "List of fiction set in Oregon" and "Culture of Oregon." If you want to join the discussion, I request you do so over there. -Pete 05:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. There is no independent, secondary source to determine just it means to define New Oregon in popular culture.  There are various apparent criteria offered in the article such as: (1) If you're born in Portland, Oregon and have done something great, you can be listed, (2) The great things that you've done, even if they don't take place in Portland, Oregon, can be listed, (3) Movies that have been filmed, even in part or inconsequentially, in Portland, can be listed, (4) Passing mentions in the media are worth noting, and (5) Music by people from Portland or music written for Portland can both be listed without worry.  There is no criteria to sort and clearly define these items beyond a list of indiscriminate trivia, determined without attribution of significance by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to keep up with the discussion, or alternately take a look at the article before commenting on it. There are currently 16 citations, nearly all of which concern themselves with the individual's (or the work's) connection to Oregon (as opposed to merely mentioning it in passing.) There's no rule against your cherry-picking the poorest examples, as you did above; but a better option would be to help us weed them out. The presence of some inconsequential items is not a reason to delete the entire article. -Pete 18:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I have found no arguement withint this discussion that even remotely makes me consider this article worthy of deletion.  All the arguements I've read for deletion are based on personal preferences of how they would like to see wikipedia run, non-binding guidelines (not policies), and frankly, utter nonsense. - T-75| talk | contribs  16:15, 28 June 2007 (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.