Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Beavers Ballpark

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. As Muboshgu says, there is precedent for keeping an article about a building/etc which was notable through media coverage, even though it was never build - notability is not temporary. I would recommend that it be renamed using the word "proposed" or something else that would indicate it didn't come to pass. However, that needs to be dealt with on the article's talk page per Wikipedia:Requested moves -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Beavers Ballpark[edit]

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

This stadium is now extremely unlikely to be built as the team's owner is selling the team and it will move out of the Portland area. I have merged relevant content for this article back into the Portland Beavers article. Esprqii (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Assuming the merge has been done, this issue is basically over, with the team slated to be sold and moved. PGE Park and the Beavers have their own pages, which should suffice. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is effectively a guess about a crystal ball. It's incredibly speculative. tedder (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of sources, it doesn't matter if it ever gets built. The fact that it received so much coverage created notability, which once established, does not go away. Crystal ball only applies to us as editors inserting our own speculation, not reporting the speculation (or in the case actual proposals) that is reported in the media. The media gets to speculate, we as editors do not. That is to say, I can write about possible supreme court nominees reported by the media. I cannot however add my own list of names based on whom I think it should be. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Aboutmovies. Patken4 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A topic does not lose notability. The nominator's rationale for deletion is that the project will likely be scrapped. That does not erase the large amount of coverage it received. Rex Is Not Your Lawyer, for example, did not lose its notability once it became an unlikely series. This subject was apparently notable for the past year and 4 months. Notability is not temporary. According to wikipedia's notability guidelines "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." If you want to have this article deleted, please let us know exactly which notability guideline is not being met by this article. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not fleeting.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this as never an actual stadium it shouldn't have an article. Merge releavant material back to the team. Spanneraol (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portland Beavers. The information is obviously relevant to something, ~~but since the ball park may never be created, the page should be deleted.~~ --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back and forth on this but for now I'll say weak keep based on the same rationale an article about the Brooklyn Dodgers proposed domed stadium belongs. If it is kept, it should probably be renamed using the word "proposed" or something else that would indicate it didn't come to pass. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is actually a better idea. Since notability is not temporary, it is still a notable subject. I'm changing my vote to keep and rename per Muboshgu. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.