This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Oregon. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Oregon|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oregon. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oregon/archive

K48BL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable defunct LPTV; no sources; could merge to List of television stations in Oregon#LPTV stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of television stations in Oregon#LPTV stations, as per the nomination. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Handelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film producer. Mainly known for being the husband of actress Elizabeth Banks. They did form a production company together, but WP:NOTINHERITED. His "writing career" does not seem notable either. There are some articles about him, but they are mainly the "who is Elizabeth Bank's husband" type of tabloid news. Natg 19 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Sports, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - yet another article with sources not on point or by the subject; one source isn't even primarily about the spouse but regarding Bruce Willis, making the subject two degrees of separation from notability. We have deleted hundreds of articles recently about spouses of minor nobility and celebrities. This is no different, except that his job(s) are even more ordinary and the subject isn't involved with philanthropy. I can't emphasize enough that anyone with a few bucks and lots of free time can get producer credit, like my domestic partner. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kloor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads a lot like a resume, tangentially mentioned in a few RS. Article may have been made for payment. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, Science, Indiana, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Making an accusation that the creator of the article, MichaelQSchmidt, a Wikipedia Administrator with over 61,000 non-automated edits, is an undisclosed paid editor is a pretty bold statement. Aside from that, the subject of the article meets WP:CREATIVE #3 for his role as producer, co-director, and writer of Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey and possibly for Earth: Final Conflict but I haven't been able to independently verify his involvement in that series (but I haven't tried very hard). RecycledPixels (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: The tone is promotional, but if one is going to claim paid advertising, then one needs to prove it. The issue is whether the tone can be fixed by ordinary editing. That's all. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as nominator- the article has had the banner claiming it was made for payment since 2022. I had assumed that there was some official process that determines that; I am a new editor. I don't claim to have evidence that the article was paid for: I mean no harm to MichaelQSchmidt. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Live and learn. Here's what happened, and a good learning curve on this one. The article was created in 2008. It wasn't until 2022 that it was tagged for possible paid editing. With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing? You see, when articles get tagged for anything, and without any backup proof, a tag is just a tag unless there is some proof. — Maile (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me, please, to disagree with your observation about the importance of the length of time, i.e. "With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing?" Well, information does not necessarily appear quickly. We might learn an article was made by a paid editor, or some other pertinent information, a considerable length of time after the article's creation, something for which I believe no examples need be given. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I might also add that anyone can slap a tag on an article. They don't have to prove the tag is correct, or that they even know why they are tagging. Just tag it. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Creative career clearly pushes subject above WP:N easily, and the claim the article was created and paid for by the subject is based on...one drive-by IP post in 2022, with @MrOllie: needing to explain why they tagged it in August of the same year. It's an accusation so poor nobody commented on it because they presented no evidence for it at all. After your poor Chanel and Travel Portland noms and this removed vote!, Plotinus, I strongly suggest doing more in article space right now because your nominations and rationales are baffling. Nathannah•(chatter) 01:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template says 'created or edited' and that is the case here - there's been a promotional SPA active on it for years - as is common in these cases, it is photo rights on their uploads that tell the tale. It's not based on an IP post, and I did not have MichaelQSchmidt in mind. - MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I worked out which account's edits you were responding to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was commented on. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject despite the avalanche of citations, the supporting material does not stand up to close scrutiny. Scalpel, please.

Forensics: We can all agree that our subject is the first to obtain a double doctorate, per All the News That's Fit to Print, and by some obscure Russian website, for good measure - though, we must discard the dead links about that double doctorate stuff, such as this Arizona roadkill.

What else do we have? We have listings on a general theme, in which our subject is mentioned, such as this list of alumni, or routine listings of events, e.g. of speaking appearances, such as this; plus, news items that are similarly about something else and not of our subject, e.g. this report about an upcoming movie, whose screenplay is written by Kloor (mentioned once), or this one about a NASA project where our subject is listed as "workshop attendee", or a Captain's Log entry on a "Star Trek interactive science exhibit" where our subject is name dropped once, and so on. Anything else trawled up belongs to the aforepresented categories.

The strong aroma of vanity, whether intentional or not, is not a problem. After all, anyone can see there is no need for two photo-portraits or that we do not get year of birth. Nor is the fact that a major curator of the text is a kamikaze account. The problem is that we do not have enough sources. And arguments to the tune "Oh, he's obviously notable" do not wash. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist attractions near Portland, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded by me with "WP:NOTTRAVEL, no sources. Many of these are several hours away from Portland, so if you want to keep this, turn it into a general Oregon tourism page rather than a ridiculous "near Portland, Oregon" day trip travel guide." Prod2 from Bearian with "That's what WikiVoyage is for." Liz deprodded with "Removing PROD tag, I'll see if there are sources". Yes, obviously we could find sources that the Timberline Lodge offers skiing and is 62 miles from Portland, but perhaps I didn't need to note that since filling this with citations would not fix the fundamental problems with this page that would require a full TNT under a different name even under my suggestion to make it a better subarticle of Oregon#Tourism and entertainment or Tourism in Portland, Oregon (even as two items are in Washington). Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no other Wikipedia articles about tourist attractions near (a subjective word) a city, but numerous lists of tourist attractions by populated place. So, just move and rescope the page to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon as an extension of Tourism in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are zero items here that are in Portland so a rescope would be deleting everything and starting from zero. You are welcome to create a new page listing Portland attractions should a subarticle to that be needed, but that's irrelevant to this article that can be deleted whether you do that or not. Reywas92^Talk 17:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the article's prose links to Tourism in Portland, Oregon and includes two Portland-specific categories, I was just thinking of a way to preserve the article history. I would be fine with a rescope and rebuild; it would be very quick and easy to do. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Clearly redundant to Tourism in Portland, Oregon, and the Wikivoyage listings. Even with improvements to comply with NOTGUIDE, I don't see why this can't be folded into the Tourism article as a simple table of attractions by visitation numbers (at most). SounderBruce 17:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested, but it's up to the closing admin to decide what to merge selectivity into Tourism in Portland, Oregon, and a redirect to that article or WikiVoyage. If Liz or anyone else finds reliable sources for this larger topic, then that would make me change my mind. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. I don't think any "list of tourist attractions" could possibly pass an AfD here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just spot checked five cities from around the world in the list of tourist attractions and I don't think any of them qualify to be on Wikipedia. I think a "most visited attractions" might be okay, but they're all essentially just indiscriminate lists of things. SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon as per AnotherBeliever. Article needs a considerable amount of rework to make it appear a lot less like a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, if you rename it that, not a single word could be kept because there are zero items in the list that are in Portland. There is literally nothing of use in this article to fit that title, and there is no need to keep this page's history to support a Portland-specific list. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Took me a whopping 2 minutes to add 25 PDX sites to the list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the list should be restricted to in Portland only, not outside of Portland (and especially not 100 miles away). Ajf773 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ajf773  Done The list is specific to Portland. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A tourist attraction 459 km away??? I'm trying to imagine what this list would look like for Brussels or Paris or any city in more densely populated regions... Nothing to merge, if a list of tourist attractions in Portland is deemed a noteworthy subject and fit for enwiki then it should be started from scratch. Fram (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon, since User:Another Believer has improved the page so it's well-sourced and restricted to Portland. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that the page as it was before AfD was not worth keeping, but do we keep the reworked list? I'm tempted to close procedurally, as this is now a new topic, but I'm hoping that previous participants will weigh in on the reworked version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Tourism in Portland, Oregon#Attractions has been added during this AFD discussion as a side-effect of it anyway, it would seem that a separate article for this is hardly needed. But this now seems to be a direct analogue to, say, the Tourism in Rome and List of tourist attractions in Rome pair.

  Wikipedia isn't a tour guide, so we don't say how many dollars one should expect to pay to stay in the hotels, or recommend nightlife spots to check out, or provide routes to follow. But there's a difference between than and a list of article-worthy things that (verifiably) are tourist attractions, which we now seem to have; with a sane definition of "in" to boot.

  That terrible list with the things "near Portland" that were half a megametre away, and telling readers that they were "top-rated", "impressive", and "spectacular", has gone. That crosses off some of the rationales above.

  Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thoroughly dislike "rescue attempts" where the contents of the article are completely changed, and it should be at a different title. That's not an AfD rescue, that's writing a completely different article at the wrong title for the wrong reasons. Like I said above, "Nothing to merge, if a list of tourist attractions in Portland is deemed a noteworthy subject and fit for enwiki then it should be started from scratch." Fram (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this should now just be merged into that section of the tourism article. I agree with Fram, and since it’s just a bullet-point list and the main page isn’t very long, I don’t even think it needs a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 16:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, having a list of notable Portland attractions seems appropriate and consistent with many other cities. The list could easily be expanded with many other sites and I plan to work on this. I had previously proposed the move and rescope above, without casting an actual vote, so here's my keep for the Portland list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Vanamonde93 noted, the article has changed radically since this AfD was opened, and we also now have the newly created section Tourism_in_Portland,_Oregon#Attractions to consider as a merge or redirect target. Relisting for more views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tourism in Portland, Oregon. I agree with the Nom's WP:NOTTRAVEL assertion, so having more than one standalone articles on this topic is clearly overkill.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read WP:NOTTRAVEL and do not see how the current list (which is different than the nominated version) is in violation of any rules. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Notability Project (originally at Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project/Page 3) for a [very out of date] bot-produced page of WP:ORE articles tagged with the {{notability}} template, now updated by hand. Please strike out and/or leave a {{done}} template along with a short note re: what was decided about the article.