Talk:Kutai National Park

Vfd discussion

This was tagged for speedy deletion & instructions in that template say if you do not think it is a candidate for that, tag it VFD and put a nomination here, so I am doing that.

To me, it seems fairly obviously a speedy keep. Can we please stop nominating real & interesting places, let alone tagging them for speedy deletion! Pashley (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Gimme a break! At worst, this could be merged and redirected somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

this is how it was created. It should have been deleted back then. Now, I don't know. It still doesn't contain any information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw the history, but the fact that an article lacks information is not per se a reason to delete, rather than merge/redirect, an article about a real place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• It could be an article but I really do not like empty pages. So until a good amount of detail is written by someone I think a redirect to a listing one the closest city page is what is needed in this case. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Right, but a redirect is not a deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This "article" was only created as a place for someone to offload their spam. As I say, at the least we should get rid of the spam in its history. And I would argue that we should wait for it to be created organically instead of leaving an "A is in B" skeleton... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to creation of a real article at some point in the distant future. Normally we do not delete real places, but spam and page creation vandalism are exceptions. We normally shoot spam on sight. K7L (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Outcome redirect made to listing. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect though eventually when someone gets around to it, KNP should have its own article. Gizza ^(roam) 23:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I still consider this an obvious keep & am upset that a redirect was done without waiting for consensus. I am seriously tempted to revert, but won't. See discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Completely_empty_skeletons. Pashley (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to upset you but a park article with just full of sections heading and one line of content is just annoying to read. Better to have a listing on the closest city which can be expanded. When the listing gets long and complex then revert the redirect and move the text there. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the "don't delete real places" policy is a good one; this should never have been nominated for deletion, & that applies to many other recent nominations.

Whether to leave an empty skeleton in place or redirect is a judgement call; I generally lean to the former since I think that gives a better chance of eventually getting a decent article, but I understand the aversion to ugly empty pages & agree that in some cases a redirect is the right solution.

What upset me here was the timing; as I see it you redirected before a consensus had been reached. Of course my timing could also be criticized; I inserted a template, geo co-ords & WP link before I even nominated it. Pashley (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bontang. Empty articles just frustrate readers and drive them to look for information elsewhere. If someone adds enough information to the entry at Bontang to warrant shooting it out, it can be split out later. Add the park doesn't have a website, that seems unlikely for now. Ground Zero (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)