Talk:Numidia
Add topicvfd discussion
[edit]- Keep a real place in ancient times... (WT-en) Traveler2006 10:07, 29 March 2006 (EST) JUBA the king of Numidia... (WT-en) Traveler2006 10:07, 29 March 2006 (EST) Todd V wants me dead... (WT-en) Traveler2006 10:07, 29 March 2006 (EST)
- Delete. This kingdom no longer exists. There's a current city by that name, but it's a speck on the map and not a good article subject. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:09, 29 March 2006 (EST)
- Note a speak on the map? (WT-en) Traveler2006 10:10, 29 March 2006 (EST) it exists? (WT-en) Traveler2006 10:10, 29 March 2006 (EST) add it.
- Keep. Use for Numidia, PA or redirect to Kenya. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 10:19, 29 March 2006 (EST)
- Why? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:15, 29 March 2006 (EST)
- Keep per the deletion policy -- we delete the article when the title is bogus, not the content. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:29, 29 March 2006 (EST)
- (What content?) The title itself seems bogus to me. It's "too fine grained" on one hand (the unincorporated farming community of 250 is too trivial to be a travel destination) and it's pretty overt "vandalism" on the other hand (the kingdom hasn't existed in over a millennium, and no one's going to search for it as a travel destination). Either way, it "doesn't fit in with our goals"... unless that now includes serving as an atlas or a history book. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:21, 29 March 2006 (EST)
- Delete. I agree with Todd: the fact that somewhere, in today's world, there is a hamlet with this name doesn't make the article (title) non-bogus. It wasn't written with that hamlet in mind, and is therefore bogus. I'd reconsider when states (or comparable regions) other than North Dakota have articles on places this small, maybe, but do we really want to reach that condition?... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:48, 29 March 2006 (EST)
- Keep. A common test to determine whether a subject gets its own article is the "can you sleep there?" test. I would interpret this to exclude private residences, but even so there's : (WT-en) Jonboy 10:48, 30 March 2006 (EST)
- From the context, that test appears to have been formulated to distinguish between a destination (which can have its own article) and an attraction (which must be included in a larger article), not to determine whether a destination is signficant enough to require a separate article. What if a locale can't even fill out the "small city" template (e.g. lacking anything to "do" or "see")? Wikipedia has a rule that any article that will never be more than a stub shouldn't be its own article; wouldn't a similar rule be useful here? Otherwise, what's to stop someone from creating an article for every street in their city that has a motel (calling it a "neighborhood" or "district")? Not particularly useful to the traveller. Saying that any B&B could be put its own article simply because it passes the sleep-there test seems like a very slippery precedent. I also agree with Bill's comment about not wanting Wikivoyage to become a Wikipedic census-dump. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:56, 30 March 2006 (EST)
- Keep. The deletion policy is pretty clear on the subject: we delete based on the title and not on the content. We have travel guides for very small places; that's one reason we're such a great resource. --(WT-en) Evan 12:47, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
- Keep. And let's continue this discussion on Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#Non-Destinations, where it belongs. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:34, 6 April 2006 (EDT)