Talk:Solair Recreation League
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- Should this not be a listing in the Woodstock (Connecticut) article? I can see having pages for things like Disney resorts but not sure if should expand to all resorts of a good size? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- ̶A̶g̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶'̶'̶'̶d̶e̶l̶e̶t̶i̶n̶g̶'̶'̶'̶ and with moving (some of) the content into Woodstock. This is definitely not an article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is no merge and delete because the CC-BY-SA licence requires attribution if we keep the content. Either delete this entirely (not keeping any of the content for re-use anywhere) or merge and redirect. K7L (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. In that case, I vote for merge and redirect. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't there the possibility that the article in question was created by an interested party? Should we therefore not delete it outright? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Who wrote it is irrelevant (see WV:Welcome, business owners), especially as the article is old. If there is touting, remove it. The rest can be merged (cutting it down to reasonable length). --LPfi (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- But surely the factual information is trivial enough that we can write it ourselves without saddling us with this redirect because we have to merge the content. Besides, if it has been here for years, how much of it is still true? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd argue that if this is touting, we should just delete it without bothering to merge the content. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- But surely the factual information is trivial enough that we can write it ourselves without saddling us with this redirect because we have to merge the content. Besides, if it has been here for years, how much of it is still true? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Who wrote it is irrelevant (see WV:Welcome, business owners), especially as the article is old. If there is touting, remove it. The rest can be merged (cutting it down to reasonable length). --LPfi (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't there the possibility that the article in question was created by an interested party? Should we therefore not delete it outright? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. In that case, I vote for merge and redirect. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is no merge and delete because the CC-BY-SA licence requires attribution if we keep the content. Either delete this entirely (not keeping any of the content for re-use anywhere) or merge and redirect. K7L (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at the website, I don't think that they are wanting casual visitors - more people who will visit regularly. A single line listing "Nudist camp - advance booking and security checks required" is sufficient if any listing at all is wanted. (Those are my words and attribution is not required - I am happy for that quote to be public domain!.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see a general consensus to delete. Will do so in a day or so unless a major objection. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please read the beginning of this page. Except in cases of speedy deletion candidates, which this article is not, we are supposed to allow for a 14-day discussion period before any action is taken on vfd candidates. I agree with your assessment re: consensus to delete, but policy requires us to wait until at least 2017-12-30 before we actually delete it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)