- 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. Anything worth merging to the target article is available from the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Second Foundation (Oregon)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Second Foundation (Oregon) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
GNG, ORG. shouldn't require explanation. this is patently non-notable. does not belong. one of the many run of the mill organizations spawned by same creator. Graywalls ( talk) 06:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Expanding initial comment - alternatively, if Wikipedia community feels it benefits from some mention, I'd be ok with delete article, then recreate redirect too. Graywalls ( talk) 16:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on deleting and then redirecting, especially when at least one other editor has voted to keep/draftify the page, which suggests the page history could be helpful? Seems to me if you're acknowledging the redirect would be helpful, we should have just discussed possibly redirecting from the start... --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, just redirect/merge to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon if deemed not notable. This is another unnecessary nomination. I've asked this editor to start talk page discussions and redirect articles before going straight to AfD. If the topic does not qualify for a standalone article, then the redirect would serve a purpose by sending readers to the LGBT culture article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 06:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing to talk about. This appears to be just one of the many you have sprayed and prayed in a batch. Graywalls ( talk) 08:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ignoring your "there's nothing to talk about" comment, please 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 Second Foundation is mentioned in the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article, at minimum redirecting should be preferred over deleting altogether. I've not yet completed a thorough review of sourcing to know if the article should actually be kept, but certainly the redirect would help readers. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- See
WP:FAILN's general endorsement of DELETION when the subject organization lacks sufficient notability in the present time. The use of redirect to mothball crummy articles about
cookie cutter organizations for the possibility that it might become notable enough for someone to expand under your creatorship would appear to be against the intent of Wikipedia. For a while, I couldn't understand why you're so adamantly opposed to deletion and continue to tendentiously engage in circular argument and try to sway participants to "switch votes". I think I've built a plausible theory. There's nothing barring re-creation of article if the subject naturally earn notability. This AfD touches on exactly the same fundamental issues as
another AfD involving another article you've created
Graywalls (
talk)
13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Both of these articles should just be redirected. Redirects can be very helpful. I invite you to review Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. This way someone searching for information about the Oregon Bears or Second Foundation will be directed to the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article. You keep citing policies for why articles should be deleted, but you're using them as if the policies say the content must be removed altogether, even as passing mentions in other articles, and that's not how Wikipedia works. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree tho, after reading. Quote the specific line or lines from that page and explain how those examples relate to this specific case.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- which in the case of this article whose section is constructively a parking table.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, So what?!? Yes, the LGBT culture article needs a lot of work, but Second Foundation should be covered there in some form. Therefore, redirecting readers there is helpful. This is easy stuff. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- which in the case of this article whose section is constructively a parking table.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree tho, after reading. Quote the specific line or lines from that page and explain how those examples relate to this specific case.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- See
WP:FAILN's general endorsement of DELETION when the subject organization lacks sufficient notability in the present time. The use of redirect to mothball crummy articles about
cookie cutter organizations for the possibility that it might become notable enough for someone to expand under your creatorship would appear to be against the intent of Wikipedia. For a while, I couldn't understand why you're so adamantly opposed to deletion and continue to tendentiously engage in circular argument and try to sway participants to "switch votes". I think I've built a plausible theory. There's nothing barring re-creation of article if the subject naturally earn notability. This AfD touches on exactly the same fundamental issues as
another AfD involving another article you've created
Graywalls (
talk)
13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. "could be" ≠ should be. You're deliberately refusing to acknowledge WP:FAILN. If and when this organization ever becomes notable, then it's easy stuff for someone to create an article should that time come. Graywalls ( talk) 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please. Again, you're using an argument for deleting a standalone article, not for removing content from Wikipedia altogether. There's nothing wrong with mentioning Second Foundation in the LGBT culture article, and since that's the case, the redirect serves a purpose. Once again, we're going in circles and I'm wasting my time going back and forth with you. I'll let other editors take over from here. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
14:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm voting to Keep based on Jonesey95's comments and
sources added to the article's talk page. If the subject is deemed non-notable by others, then at minimum a redirect to the LGBT culture in Portland article is appropriate. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
19:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Double-Count !Vote Risk ? just pointing out that the comment above from Another Believer has "redirect/merge" in bold which is not to be confused with the !vote to Keep above. HighKing ++ 12:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm voting to Keep based on Jonesey95's comments and
sources added to the article's talk page. If the subject is deemed non-notable by others, then at minimum a redirect to the LGBT culture in Portland article is appropriate. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
19:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep or Draftify. This organization is mentioned at least five times in the archives of The Oregonian. It is likely to be notable. It will no doubt be difficult to find on-line sources for an organization that was active primarily in the 1970s. More time is needed to research and develop sourcing. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 09:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 09:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect with
LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon per
Another Believer, I don't think this is notable enough for its own page.
Mosaicberry (
talk)
13:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is "I don't think this is notable enough" really a
valid argument for deletion? Also, you're saying "per Another Believer" as if my final recommendation was to redirect, when that's untrue. I was saying to keep the article, with redirecting being a minimum action if the topic was deemed not notable. The truth is more research and article expansion are needed here. I'd try to flesh out the article now but I'm currently scrambling to improve other articles nominated (in my opinion, unnecessarily) by the same editor. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
17:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, I didn't read through all the posts. Mosaicberry ( talk) 21:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is "I don't think this is notable enough" really a
valid argument for deletion? Also, you're saying "per Another Believer" as if my final recommendation was to redirect, when that's untrue. I was saying to keep the article, with redirecting being a minimum action if the topic was deemed not notable. The truth is more research and article expansion are needed here. I'd try to flesh out the article now but I'm currently scrambling to improve other articles nominated (in my opinion, unnecessarily) by the same editor. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
17:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability for this organization as per WP:NCORP and GNG. Not even close. HighKing ++ 12:10, 22 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.