- 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 redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Oregon Bears
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Oregon Bears ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I became aware of this article while conducting research for another AfD debate. The article fails to assert notability. A quick check fails to establish notability to the burden of WP:GNG with depth of coverage and audience base satisfactory to WP:ORG. I don't support redirecting it. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of anything and everything that is independently verifiable, the lack of notability should be a ground for deletion. Graywalls ( talk) 21:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Expanding my position in favor of deletion: This organization certainly fits the bill of
Run of the mill. Anything that caters to a sub-culture or a special interest is notable among a small circle of people. This is common sense. A tune shop that specializes on one brand and caters to enthusiasts would have mentions in auto related magazines. It can be notable regional among enthusiasts of that brand... and locally notable in automotive circle in general. But in the grand scheme of things, those things are often "run of the mill". My article interests are things but I always take a step back and consider it from a non-local and unrelated people perspective. Although it might appear to those seeing AfDs as I'm choosing after the creator's articles, it just happens that a large number of questionable articles I come across are the ones created by him. I see it as absolutely absurd he's essentially trying to make an
article on practically EVERY LGBT related organizations and businesses like gay bars and unfortunately, I'm frequently seeing more or less the same concern. Lack of GNG, NORG, AUD, MILL and so on.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- You've already made your point re: notability of Oregon Bears. I'm the article creator and I've voted in favor of redirecting the article to the LGBT culture in Portland article, where mention of the group is entirely appropriate. The list on the LGBT culture talk page is more a list of topics to cover than a list of missing articles, so I'll update the section title. Meanwhile, you're still failing to argue why mention of the Oregon Bears is inappropriate at the LGBT culture article. I was trying to keep this discussion focused on the Oregon Bears, but this has bled into the LGBT culture article. All of this could have been avoided by simply redirecting the Oregon Bears page to the LGBT culture article, which I would have gladly done myself if you had just posted your concerns on the talk page. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- As a contextual preface, everyone of similar type run-of-the-mill articles that I've dealt with, that happened to be from you have been the same issue and you've been pushing for "it should be expanded" or "redirect to something". I've already quoted you the relevant phrase from the policy WP:FAILN. Spawning out a mass of articles about run of the mill places and leaning down against "Redirects are cheap" as a way of anchoring presence into Wikipedia goes against the spirit. Graywalls ( talk) 19:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- You've already made your point re: notability of Oregon Bears. I'm the article creator and I've voted in favor of redirecting the article to the LGBT culture in Portland article, where mention of the group is entirely appropriate. The list on the LGBT culture talk page is more a list of topics to cover than a list of missing articles, so I'll update the section title. Meanwhile, you're still failing to argue why mention of the Oregon Bears is inappropriate at the LGBT culture article. I was trying to keep this discussion focused on the Oregon Bears, but this has bled into the LGBT culture article. All of this could have been avoided by simply redirecting the Oregon Bears page to the LGBT culture article, which I would have gladly done myself if you had just posted your concerns on the talk page. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong delete I almost snorted out my drink from laughter after seeing this. No iota of notability.
Trillfendi (
talk)
21:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @
Trillfendi: Not sure what's so funny, but curious, are you open to redirecting since the group is mentioned in the LGBT culture in Portland article? ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- While the mention of the mention is in a passive voice,
Another Believer
inserted that mention an hour after the AfD was started and
shortly before he proposed redirect into this AfD.
Graywalls (
talk)
17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ Graywalls: So what? I certainly stand by this edit. There was no need to go to AfD when we could have simply redirected and merged content about the Oregon Bears over to the LGBT culture in Portland article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- While the mention of the mention is in a passive voice,
Another Believer
inserted that mention an hour after the AfD was started and
shortly before he proposed redirect into this AfD.
Graywalls (
talk)
17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Trillfendi: Not sure what's so funny, but curious, are you open to redirecting since the group is mentioned in the LGBT culture in Portland article? ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just because one could have done something that suites your desire better doesn't mean a thing. Per
WP:FAILN, deletion is the proper action for clearly non-notable existence such as this organization.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was just explaining my edit, which you implied was inappropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just because one could have done something that suites your desire better doesn't mean a thing. Per
WP:FAILN, deletion is the proper action for clearly non-notable existence such as this organization.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not notable
Lubbad85 (
talk)
22:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ Lubbad85: Curious, what are your thoughts on redirecting the article (see below discussion)? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. The LGBT culture article should mention this group in some form, and the redirect serves a purpose by sending readers to the right place for more information. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, where it can be mentioned as a group there. It's a Portland group, so it would make more sense to be to redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon over Bear (gay culture). -- Kbabej ( talk) 23:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- that would be along the same line of argument as protesting the deletion of
Starbucks Location #whateversome person's vegan food cart article and pushing for redirect into the neighborhood,coffee shop in the locality, vegan culture in Portland, small businesses in the township or whatever category that comes into the mind of article creator and relying on dependent sources to justify article existence. Graywalls ( talk) 04:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)- I'm not following. Keeping the redirect sends people searching "Oregon Bears" to the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article, which is quite appropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't a chapter of a parent organization. I think you are conflating Bear (gay culture) with an organization. The subject of the AfD is Oregon Bears, a Portland-based org. It makes more sense to redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon rather than a slang term. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I could have used a different examples. Some run of the mill non-notable local organizations like this one... or hypothetical companies like
Jane Doe's kabobs or
Cindy's Dry Cleaners shouldn't have their stand-alone article. Addressing these concerns by redirecting creates an expectation that any business or local groups can be inserted and expected to get a redirect at the minimum to category of creator's choice, thus leading to deterioration of Wikipedia by encouraging spamdexing.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- You might review
Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects, which says, redirects are appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Since Oregon Bears are mentioned in the
LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article, a redirect is appropriate. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree. It's not appropriate to spawn out redirects for whatever non-notable business editors can think of.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Graywalls, I didn't say creating redirects for "whatever non-notable businesses" was appropriate. You're putting words in my mouth. Please keep focus on Oregon Bears, specifically. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- An organization, such as
Oregon Bears is an example of such a dime a dozen, non-notable, run of the mill, incorporated organizations.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Mentioning the organization in the LGBT culture in Portland article is totally appropriate because there are sources describing the group in this context. Therefore, having a redirect send readers there is also appropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- An organization, such as
Oregon Bears is an example of such a dime a dozen, non-notable, run of the mill, incorporated organizations.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Graywalls, I didn't say creating redirects for "whatever non-notable businesses" was appropriate. You're putting words in my mouth. Please keep focus on Oregon Bears, specifically. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree. It's not appropriate to spawn out redirects for whatever non-notable business editors can think of.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- You might review
Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects, which says, redirects are appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Since Oregon Bears are mentioned in the
LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article, a redirect is appropriate. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- that would be along the same line of argument as protesting the deletion of
- Redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon and/or Bear (gay culture). Having lived there, I can attest to the notable existence of this highly organized sub-culture, (from various encounters, ie; unintentional WP:ORIG). AHampton ( talk) 21:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- just to clarify, from the official page of the organization whose notability is being challenged, I am seeing "Oregon Bears is a category 501(c)(7) Social and Recreation Club." and "Oregon Bears, Inc. is a fraternal and social organization committed to fun and fundraising." So, it's quite possible that the subculture
Bear (gay culture) is notable, but per
No inherited notability policy, there's no such thing as presumptive notability passed down to organizations related to this subculture. Per
No inherent notability, this organization fails to establish notability per
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG just like most obscure local businesses and "small garage" type existence. I don't think this specific organization is generally notable. I'm not finding compelling evidence that it is either. Despite this, since I fully expected
Another Believer to object it, so, pursuant to
WP:FAILN, I'm expected to process it through AfD.
Graywalls (
talk)
13:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's no need to call me out when others clearly agree with my rationale. You've made your case that Oregon Bears may not be independently notable and qualify for a standalone article, but I'm not following how/why keeping mention of the group in other articles is inappropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- "For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material." from
WP:FAILN. Clearly not notable, such as this organization whose presence is a trivial mention in the Portland Mercury which routinely publish things to do, and a trivial mention (a line item in a long list) on the city's special interest topic. There's not a single damn source showing any hint of notability.
Graywalls (
talk)
16:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you're making the argument there should not be a standalone article about the group. You're failing to explain why the group cannot be mentioned in the LGBT culture in Portland article. Once again, we're going in circles, so I'll let others wrap this up. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- "For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material." from
WP:FAILN. Clearly not notable, such as this organization whose presence is a trivial mention in the Portland Mercury which routinely publish things to do, and a trivial mention (a line item in a long list) on the city's special interest topic. There's not a single damn source showing any hint of notability.
Graywalls (
talk)
16:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- just to clarify, from the official page of the organization whose notability is being challenged, I am seeing "Oregon Bears is a category 501(c)(7) Social and Recreation Club." and "Oregon Bears, Inc. is a fraternal and social organization committed to fun and fundraising." So, it's quite possible that the subculture
Bear (gay culture) is notable, but per
No inherited notability policy, there's no such thing as presumptive notability passed down to organizations related to this subculture. Per
No inherent notability, this organization fails to establish notability per
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG just like most obscure local businesses and "small garage" type existence. I don't think this specific organization is generally notable. I'm not finding compelling evidence that it is either. Despite this, since I fully expected
Another Believer to object it, so, pursuant to
WP:FAILN, I'm expected to process it through AfD.
Graywalls (
talk)
13:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect Since we can redirect to only one article, LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon should be the target. If, on the other hand, it had been just the Oregon branch of a national organization, then there wouldn't be an appropriate redirect. I think some of the comments above may have failed to make that distinction. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Graywalls insists on removing mention of the Oregon Bears from the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article, for reasons I don't understand. I've started a discussion on the talk page. My concern is editors may not think redirecting is appropriate because "Oregon Bears" does not currently appear on the LGBT culture article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- comment on comment It didn't appear anyways until you added it after the AfD was created, thus possibly unduly influence other editors to perceive it differently.
Graywalls (
talk)
00:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a rule against adding mention of a topic to an appropriate article because the topic's article has been nominated for deletion? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've added mention of Oregon Bears back, along with two citations, so editors can at least have the option of seeing how a redirect may be possible. I believe this is well within rules of Wikipedia. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- comment on comment It didn't appear anyways until you added it after the AfD was created, thus possibly unduly influence other editors to perceive it differently.
Graywalls (
talk)
00:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Local social club with no notability. The LGBT Portland article is not the place to list every non-notable group that falls within that umbrella; this is not
List of contingents in the Portland Pride Parade.
Reywas92
Talk
06:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Reywas92, Not mentioning the Oregon Bears in the LGBT culture in Portland article would be a disservice to Wikipedia, truly (see
here and
here), but that's a discussion for the LGBT culture talk page. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
14:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The second source is a press release.
wumbolo
^^^
18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Wumbolo,
This one? ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It quotes the press release in one paragraph, and I assume that all the other facts are from the press release.
wumbolo
^^^
18:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wumbolo, That's quite an assumption... I wouldn't suggest we quote the press release part, but the rest of the article seems appropriate for supporting a general claim about the group's existence. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It quotes the press release in one paragraph, and I assume that all the other facts are from the press release.
wumbolo
^^^
18:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Wumbolo,
This one? ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The second source is a press release.
wumbolo
^^^
18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- So the local alt-weekly wrote a short article about a bar that mentions this group, and the other alt-weekly profiled the with the concept of Bears based on their press release. The WWeek and Mercury publish issues on a wide variety of local-interest topics every week, but it's a disservice not to dutifully mention anything and everything that the newspaper does? Does the article need to mention LGBT people
like to go bowling with their social groups too because the largest newspaper in the state covered some local news? I suppose we could try to automatically import an index of their archives if that would be a service to our readers.
Reywas92
Talk
19:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think I'll be able to convince you the Oregon Bears should be mentioned in the LGBT culture article, so I'll stop trying and just focus on that article later. I'm confident mention of the Oregon Bears will be kept longterm, and still believe a redirect is the best solution here. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm just going to link to the other AFD at
AfD Second_Foundation_Oregon) so the argument is recycled rather than retype.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this is another example of where redirecting is entirely appropriate. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
14:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- This has a legitimate contextual cue and doesn't redirect into a word parking table. Graywalls ( talk) 15:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this is another example of where redirecting is entirely appropriate. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
14:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm just going to link to the other AFD at
AfD Second_Foundation_Oregon) so the argument is recycled rather than retype.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think I'll be able to convince you the Oregon Bears should be mentioned in the LGBT culture article, so I'll stop trying and just focus on that article later. I'm confident mention of the Oregon Bears will be kept longterm, and still believe a redirect is the best solution here. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- So the local alt-weekly wrote a short article about a bar that mentions this group, and the other alt-weekly profiled the with the concept of Bears based on their press release. The WWeek and Mercury publish issues on a wide variety of local-interest topics every week, but it's a disservice not to dutifully mention anything and everything that the newspaper does? Does the article need to mention LGBT people
like to go bowling with their social groups too because the largest newspaper in the state covered some local news? I suppose we could try to automatically import an index of their archives if that would be a service to our readers.
Reywas92
Talk
19:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Reywas92, Not mentioning the Oregon Bears in the LGBT culture in Portland article would be a disservice to Wikipedia, truly (see
here and
here), but that's a discussion for the LGBT culture talk page. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
14:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
comment So it seems like there's little to no disagreement that there's no merit to a stand alone article. Although I maintain my position in favor of a simple delete, if consensus comes to that there's a merit to redirecting, then delete and redirect would be a reasonable compromise. Graywalls ( talk) 16:05, 5 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.