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 delete. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop at 4[edit]

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

A laudable campaign, but of no encyclopedic relevance, as is made clear by the local scope and the paucity of references. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 08:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Local scope is normally not an issue. Choor monster (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: The guideline User:Choor monster alluded to actually suggests the topic is not notable, at least for now. The campaign seems to only have affected the greater Portland area, and while it does seem to have had some impact there, I'm not sure there can be considered "demonstrable long-term impact" just five years after the campaign began. T C N7JM 16:18, 5 March 2015 (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.