Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort not Portland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete (discounting IPs). 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fort not Portland

Non-notable place (whether it existed or not), and being a long-time Louisville resident, I had never heard of the place. Google hits are negligible. -- — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable "punk house." —Cleared as filed. 05:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hi Stevie... yeah definite vanity article here (original research too). Just some random punk house, I've even been to a few such places in Louisville and never heard of this one. --W.marsh 06:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and apparently defunct. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Having been in close contact with many of the people that came through this place, and having never been there myself while it was around I would say that it served a very important function in not only Louisville, re: crimethinc convergence, but also the greater midwest. It served as a sort of underground railroad clearing house for political hobos who were moving from action to action in the midwest.
    • Potential sock-puppet vote from IP 207.250.128.144 -- this was the sole edit by that anonymous user. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the original author of this article. I am new to wikipedia, but trying to catch up. As I understand it, my page has been marked for deletion under WP:VAIN.

*KEEP I agree with what Electricz just said. I remember fort not portland. It was a good place that had shows there. I meet new friends and learned about anrcho culture. A culture previously keepen from me by an overbearing society. Fort Not Portland was a good place and needs to be remembered.


Given the current state of the article, I can understand this complaint. Its current incarnation mainly consists of what might be refered to as the "downfall of ft. not portland." It does not currently discuss the reasons that Ft. not Portland became an important establishment to people in Lousiville and throughout the United States. This was the Principled anarchist collective I hinted at in my original article but did not expand upon.

I wrote about this part of the history first for two reasons. First, This is the time period that I have the most direct knowledge regarding. Second, I hoped by posting this cursory information I could entice editors with more direct knowledge to expand the article.

Please understand that the article is only one day old, and has had only one major edit (its creation). I will enumerate why I do not believe this article qualifies as a vanity article: 1) I was only a one-time guest at ft not portland, and thus do not consider myself directly related to it. 2) Part two of WP:VAIN states that "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition [that] is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia." Thus, even though the great majority may not know of Ft not Portland's existence, this does not make it irrelevant. In fact, the fort was very relevant to a great many people. It was an important punk rock and anarcho-folk music venue in the Louisville community for over a year. It was also an important center for organizing radical political activities. It's impact on the anarchist and punk community in louisville and the South-East region of the United States is still deeply felt. Just because this community is small in relation to the greater community does not mean their interests should be ignored. 3) This article is the first article in what I was hoping to be an attempt to document "Punk Houses" in the United States. A category has been created to aid in this. It is a phenomenon that is actually very interesting and has many anthropological implecations.

I understand people's concerns with this article, but I really don't think it warrants deletion. Perhaps there is a more appropriate tag something like "we're working on it" or some-such that will denote the inadequecy of the article. Electricz 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Vanity is just incidental. You say you want people to add edits from their own personal experience... that's a big problem, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to be able to cite published sources. See Wikipedia:No original research... that's the real problem here. Unless you can cite actual media or equivilent published 3rd party coverage of this place that confirms your claims... there's no way it could pass the AfD, in my opinion at least. --W.marsh 16:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Where did the source information for those original sources that you hold so sacred come from? First person experience, anecdote and accounts are all valid sources for a scholarly article, as long as there is a well rounded collection of these views of events. I am not trying to make a comparison of importance, but what you are saying is that no first hand account of an event is valid as a resource, or that no analysis of current events, in writing, with out "published source material" is valid.
      • The Wikipedia is *not* a compendium of "scholarly articles." It is an encyclopedia. No original research is allowed here. All articles require hard references of their factuality. Anecdote is clearly not allowed. First person experience would only count if you have two or more such experiences/accounts that are unconnected and referenced somewhere that can be pointed to. Simply discussing such experiences in the article isn't good enough; there has to be backup for these things. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I did some research on the wikipedia "no original research" policy today. I do not believe that it applies to this article either. WP:NOR states the following: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation'." Essentially it seems that WP:NOR is mostly relevant to academic articles. Articles involving the hard sciences as well as the social sciences. My belief is reinforced by section three of WP:AFDP none of the examples given seem to apply. Electricz 03:17, 15 November 2005 (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.