Talk:Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary
Add topicMerge
[edit]This should be merged back into Goa. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:38, 23 Oct 2004 (EDT)
- Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary is a genuine destination (although this writer didn't like it), so I'll move the article there. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 15:27, 9 Nov 2004 (EST)
VFD Discussion
[edit]- Merge and Delete, as this is an attraction. --(WT-en) inas 23:22, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
- Merge and Redirect, per Project:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting: "Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected" (WT-en) LtPowers 08:58, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- Merge and Redirect per LtPowers, unless its not a major attraction, in which case we should delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- I interpret the major attraction, being a high hurdle to get over, so we avoid creating redirects for every zoo and garden on the globe. How do we decide? --(WT-en) inas 19:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- I disagree; redirects are cheap, so I don't see the hurdle as very significant. We should avoid creating redirects willy-nilly in any case, but as long as the page exists, and someone took the time to write what's really a decent article on the place, I see little harm in redirecting (especially after a merge, for attribution purposes if nothing else). We should be cautious about minor commercial attractions, of course. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:01, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
- My concern isn't so much with the redirect, which as you say is cheap, but rather with redirecting a minor commercial attraction. I don't doubt its commercial - it isn't a santuary or a national park, it is a zoo. As to whether it qualifies as major, not sure, but the google hits are a couple of orders of magnitude below any other zoo I could think of. I certainly see the major attraction hurdle high enough that most commercial attractions wouldn't qualify for redirects, only exceptional or widely known ones. --(WT-en) inas 02:57, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
- Well, it's what, 8 square kilometers? More than twice the size of Central Park. =) I would say it's certainly one of the major attractions in or around Goa, commercial or not. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:40, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
- My concern isn't so much with the redirect, which as you say is cheap, but rather with redirecting a minor commercial attraction. I don't doubt its commercial - it isn't a santuary or a national park, it is a zoo. As to whether it qualifies as major, not sure, but the google hits are a couple of orders of magnitude below any other zoo I could think of. I certainly see the major attraction hurdle high enough that most commercial attractions wouldn't qualify for redirects, only exceptional or widely known ones. --(WT-en) inas 02:57, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
- I disagree; redirects are cheap, so I don't see the hurdle as very significant. We should avoid creating redirects willy-nilly in any case, but as long as the page exists, and someone took the time to write what's really a decent article on the place, I see little harm in redirecting (especially after a merge, for attribution purposes if nothing else). We should be cautious about minor commercial attractions, of course. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:01, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
- Merge and redirect. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:20, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
- This nomination is three months old, but in trying to resolve it I'm unsure what people want it merged with - Goa? Any clarification would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:33, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
- Keep. I hadn't looked at this before, but what is the deletion rationale here? Simply asserting it is an "attraction"? Or asserting that it is a "zoo" not a "park"? The article states that you can sleep here, there is a restaurant, and it's actually a well developed Other Destination article of clear value to the traveler. If people think this information would be more useful if merged with another article, that's a question of content organization that would belong on the talk page, not vfd, but it anyway does not appear that anyone has a concrete idea of how to improve the organization. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:28, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
- I'm not sure; maybe I didn't look closely enough at the article to see that there were accommodations there. I'm fine with keeping; maybe I just wanted to make sure it wasn't deleted without a redirect. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:03, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
- So is this a "keep" now? My sense of the discussion is that "keep" is the correct resolution, but if anyone feels differently please comment. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:09, 19 September 2010 (EDT)
Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:45, 23 September 2010 (EDT)