Deletion of Portland, Oregon in popular culture

Comment: per healthy and productive process currently underway at discussion pages noted above. It seems to me the nomination springs more from a desire to make a |point than to improve the encyclopedia or the collaboration that supports it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Having re-read , let me clarify that I am '''not''' accusing Eyrian of disruptive editing, nor am I basing my vote on that policy. Though I generally dislike the invocation of this policy, I guess this is a case of |ignore all rules. The article serves an important function '''merely by its existence''', by making it possible to divert disruptive edits from newbies that would otherwise provoke unnecessary disputes. Thus, it allows us to both be more welcoming to newcomers, and keep important articles like Oregon and Portland, Oregon relatively stable and spam-free. I believe that is enough to justify the existence of the articles, but some of the content justifies it as well: the Portland connections of some items, like Beverly Cleary and The Simpsons, are significant and widely-reported.  I agree that the article could use some improvement, but strongly disagree that its current flaws justify deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:IAR)