It is a real place, so policy is not to delete. Someone may search for it. Either keep or redirect, presumably to Benson. I lean toward keep, but won't argue with anyone who knows the area and says redirect. Pashley (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually from the area. I don't think the park is any larger or more important than some other nearby places of interest which don't have their own pages (e.g. Coronado National Memorial). I'll create a Benson page and include the listing there as well. Then would it be acceptable to redirect? StellarD (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Western New York is a part of the state of New York, but there is no consistent definition and it’s not even mentioned in the New York (state) page. I don’t think it deserves an article because it overlaps several existing subregions in New York and the current page doesn’t contain anything that couldn’t go in New York (state). I think this page should be a redirection to New York (state) with a few explanations about Western New York there. -- Fractal (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a lifelong Western New Yorker, it pains my heart to vote this way, but: deleteredirect. It doesn't (and can't be made to, given the lack of a consistent definition of "Western New York") fit into the subregions scheme of New York (state). Furthermore, the article contains no useful travel information and is, in fact, nothing but a brief discussion of the competing definitions of "Western New York". Wikipedia's article on Western New York contains, among other things, the exact same information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. First of all, it's a real place, so there's no policy-based reason to delete it. At worst it should be redirected, per policy (after all, we don't want people who search for it to end up at a redlink, do we?). However, this is essentially a disambiguation page. Or extra-hierarchical region, depending on how you want to look at it. The point is to get readers to the content they want; deleting it would leave them high and dry. LtPowers (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It didn’t occur to me that this page could be seen as a disambiguation page, but now that you say it, it sort of make sense. If we keep it as a disambiguation page, we should at least add the tag {{disamb}} and probably remove the tag {{stub}}. Fractal (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per LtPowers rationale even though Fractal and AndreCarrotflower's comments and nomination are otherwise right on the money - but only if it's made clear that it is a disambiguation page (example here - take a look at the hidden HTML comment to potential editors which is quite important) --W. Franke-mailtalk13:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a disambig tag on it until Traveler100 changed it to outlineregion. I reverted that, then Traveler100 changed it to stub, which I left so as not to edit war. LtPowers (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think it's really a disambiguation page, but that's the closest analogue we have at the moment. It's really an extra-hierarchical region, like Navajo Nation, except that it's not one we actually want a full travel guide for. LtPowers (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of wonder whether we need disambiguation pages for theoretical region articles, though. If we don't want an article for it, then why are we writing about it at all? --PeterTalk19:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is a persuasive argument. If we redirected Western New York, people could still search for it, but that would lead to the question of where to redirect the article. Given that it's an extrahierarchical region with undefined boundaries that can be interpreted as encompassing several of our hierarchical regions in whole or in part, we can't really redirect to the Niagara Frontier, the Finger Lakes, or the Southern Tier, and I doubt that anyone searching specifically for information on Western New York would be satisfied at being redirected to New York (state). I'm changing my vote to keep. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the information is way too much for New York#Regions, which along with the two sections following is meant to be a pretty simple navigation tool for descending the hierarchy. I'm not sure all that explanation is really that important anywhere, actually, aside maybe from Talk:New York (state)#Regions. By the way, this discussion should be copied to that page when archiving this nomination. --PeterTalk17:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For someone looking for travel information to Western New York, redirecting to New York (state) makes perfect sense, it does not seem that there is anything specific to say about Western New York that couldn’t be said in either New York (state) or in the specific subregions. For someone looking for the definition of "Western New York", well, that’s the wrong website. Fractal (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another example: I live in the south of France, usually known as le Midi. But there is no such article or redirection on Wikivoyage, and not even on the French Wikivoyage, because it doesn’t fit the regions scheme of France. But I don’t think there should be such an article, the traveller probably doesn’t care, and if he does care he can go to Wikipedia to get the definition. Fractal (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. Sure, le Midi on one level just means "noon" in French, so people might not look for it, but what about Côte d'Azur? It redirects to French Riviera, which is the right thing to do. We should probably redirect Midi there, too.
My point of view is that any search term a traveller would reasonably look for should normally get some kind of result. Having "Western New York" go nowhere does not serve the traveller, in my opinion, and is therefore not satisfactory. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably live with a simple redirect to New York (state), but I feel like having this page will help the traveler more than just dropping them at the state level without explanation. LtPowers (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a real place. I do not know the area, so I'm not certain if it should be a disambig page or a redirect. I would guess disambig from discussion above, but would not object if someone who knows the region wants to overrule. Deletion should not even be considered. Pashley (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are indeed several similar pages, I think that having an additional tag is a good idea. Western New York should not be a proper region in the sense of Wikivoyage (because of overlaps) nor a disambiguation page and it seems that people don’t want to simply redirect to New York. Fractal (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about that discussion. Peter's position seems to be that either we should be able to write a full-fledged region article on a legitimate region, or we shouldn't have an article for it at all (meaning it should be redirected). So maybe the disconnect here is that when I say "we [don't] actually want a full travel guide for [it]", Peter would say "yes, we do, if it's a legitimate travel region"? The problem with that in this case, though, is that "Western New York" is not well-defined. I don't see how we could write a full travel guide for it, because there's no way to define which destinations are within it. LtPowers (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would say we don't want a full travel guide for W NY, so we might as well just get rid of it. But my position has softened over time, I guess—I don't see what harm it's doing as a pseudo-disambiguation page. --PeterTalk06:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not doing any harm, but I think it'd be nice to keep disambiguation pages for names that are actually ambiguous, while allowing for more detail on these sorts of pages to help readers looking for them. If we deleted/redirected it, we're doing our readers a disservice by obscuring the information they're looking for. LtPowers (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except while we still don't have these new class of regions, we traditionally deploy the disamb to places that aren't. --Inas (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This topic's last edit was in 2010, and two of the three write-ups did not belong on WV: a first-person tout-up for a hotel aggregator site, and a link to a general, non-travel-specific mobile app search site (both of which I removed). That leaves one recommendation left, written before apple store and android took over the mobile app market, and things look quite different out there now, with hundreds of mobile apps available. Do we really want to be in the business of keeping up with them, rating, and recommending them?
It looks like you are mistaken. Here is the full quote of the relevant clause under "Reasons to delete articles":
Article entries should be deleted from the site when...
...they are travel topics that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year, and there is no suitable travel topic to redirect to.
Delete - " The current version (April 2004)...", that's everything in a nutshell. Now, ten years later, people can get online much easier to google up specific information right when they need it. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might vote "provisional keep" if I had any faith that it would actually lead to a top-to-bottom rewrite of the article. Since I do not, delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aquiraz. First of all, as has been repeated umpteen times on this page, we always redirect real places. Secondly, I'm not sold on Pashley's idea of a disambiguation page. Iguape is a settlement within a municipality, which makes it analogous to a district article. We might have an article called Aquiraz/Iguape in the exceedingly unlikely event that the Aquiraz article is ever developed fully enough to receive the Huge City template. There's a neighborhood in Buffalo called Allentown, but even when the Buffalo districts go live in mainspace, we won't need to create a disambiguation page for those who might confuse it with the city in Pennsylvania. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Iguape (São Paulo) here. It is just a beach and not that far from the center of Aquiraz. No redirect is really necessary (certainly not Iguape (Ceará), since it's actually "Praia do Iguape" or "Iguape Beach"). Similarly, no disambiguation is necessary either, since there is only one city (in SP) called Iguape. We don't typically make disambig pages just because some non-destination or geographical feature shares a name - we'd have to create dozens of disambigs for Brazil alone if we had to disambiguate city names from beach or hill names. Texugo (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I agree with Andre, lack of content is not a deletion rationale. I also think redirecting is only a good thing for real places where the development of an own article is unlikely or even unwanted. In other cases, a redirect will only decrease the chances of anyone editing it, as following a redirect back to its origin is really not that simple for less seasoned editors. I'm also not convinced it has such great advantages. Anyone who will look up West End in Honduras will already know it's on Roatán; redirecting there is of little help. It is then better to have a clear in-text link to the region article, but not to redirect automatically. Saqib went ahead and put a vfd-template on the Roatán article, as the redirect was already in place, but that just seems wrong. Therefore, I undid the redirect and restored the vfd template on West End-West Bay, awaiting discussion here. For the record, there's a bunch of hotel and other entries on e.g. Tripadvisor, so it seems reasonable to expect this article to grow at some point. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why are two locations in the title of this article while in the Roatán, where there is information, they are listed separately?--Traveler100 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine and dandy to say that we always redirect real places, but I also think something that bears repeating is that per policy as well as precedent, even redirection should not be considered unless the destination in question is so devoid of potential fodder for a "See", "Do", "Eat", "Drink" or "Sleep" section that it could never be more than an outline even if every place were listed. (In other words, lack of content per se is neither a valid deletion rationale nor a valid rationale to redirect.) And, as JuliasTravels said, West End-West Bay doesn't fall under that category. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat disagree. We're doing our readers a disservice by leaving them with an empty article, when we do have relevant content in another. It's not hard to both create and remove redirects, and if someone wants to build the article, they should just do so. Removing a redirect from an empty article doesn't really progress the project any. I don't believe we have any such thing as a rationale to redirect, nor do I think we necessarily need one. --Inas (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a redirect to create a new article isn't hard once you know how to do it, but I do think it's a rather big step for a passer-by who happens to have been to West-End and would otherwise just easily add a listing or two. In this case I'm a bit in doubt though, since the island-article has a regular destination layout, including listings for several towns, also West-End. In comparable (non-island) situations, this would rather be a region article and the towns would have their own articles, right? I'm not familiar with this place though, and I'm not entirely sure what the best solution would be. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective, and having an easy site to navigate for editors is a good thing. However, we have some useful travel content in the Roatán article, and we should assist the traveller to find that rather than this empty article with an unlikely article name. --Inas (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete West End and West Bay are two different places. I don't think so anybody will go to type "West End-West Bay" in search field as its a uncommon name. --Saqib (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the logic behind redirects, is that hopefully next time someone will just spend 5 seconds doing a redirect than going through a nomination process where there is a clear target for the redirect (as there is here). Redirects are cheap --Inas (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems utterly unnecessary, and confusing for readers. If there were any useful information, I'd say merge it into South America, where readers might find it.
Keep but fine with deleting the sub-pages. These pages are basically there to provide an alternative navigation through travel topics by region as well as topic. Also allows you to create one related link in the county article rather than one for each travel topic. OK not a big issue in South America at the moment but for others it is. Yes they are very blank but starting to delete these we could also argue for delete quite a few location and region pages that are nothing more than place holders and means of keeping the breadcrumb and categories working.--Traveler100 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes but the relies on people adding where required. If the PartOfTipic is not filled out the article will be highlighted in maintenance categories. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that discussion did not reach consensus which I think is necessary before major changes to how the site is organised.
Also, these articles are not "portions of the hierarchy created from that discussion"; it does not discuss creation of articles like this and, if you look at a low-level article such as Golf in Argentina, the breadcrumb trail does not use these articles; it is
Travel topics > Travel activities > Sport > Golf > Golf in Argentina
By the way, search shows there are many more "Topics in ..." articles. I'd say delete them all, but am not adding vfd tags until this discussion is resolved. Pashley (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is now more discussion on the Talk:Travel_topics page, but nothing new here & we are getting close to the two week limit. I still want to delete all the "Topics in ..." articles. Other comments? Pashley (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Commons has 62 files in Category:Beers of the Netherlands including a glass of the same beer and loads of different bottles, so there is no shortage of similar images. AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete. Copyright status is not entirely clear and it is not a particularly good photo, so it is not worth moving to Commons. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of field isn't ideal, but other than that it looks like a very good photo to me. And what's unclear about the copyright status? LtPowers (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the badly located elbow ruins it. As others have correctly said above, the fair use rationale is invalid. Even you only claimed it was "probably not copyrightable". Also, that rationale cites US law for an image shot in Europe & used worldwide. Pashley (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only said "probably" because I'm not a lawyer. Admittedly I didn't notice the elbow. Still, unless there's a substantially similar image on Commons, I think this would be valuable there. LtPowers (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the existing commons images of the same bottle and glass. To me they are fairly similar (or better), but obviously they are separate images. AlasdairW (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better for encylopedic purposes, but I think Jani's image is more interesting. The logo is already on commons in other images, so lets just move this one there. --Inas (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the page is talking about destination articles. The section on "Non destination-style articles" section does not say a great deal. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for now. I'll reiterate my comment from the last discussion - some organizational structure for topics is better than no organizational structure, so if there are issues with the current structure then let's come up with a new approach at Talk:Travel topics#Change to tagging travel topics. rather than haphazardly deleting portions of the existing structure. With "Topics in South America" deleted we now have orphaned "Topics in" country articles, Topics in Asia still exists, etc. Rather than doing this piecemeal via VFD, let's solve the bigger problem. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to avoid doing it piecemeal, but I wasn't about to try to track them all down and add a VfD tag to each of them. LtPowers (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The VFD page is not the right place for this discussion. We now have a red-link on Travel topics for the Topics in South America page, while all other continents have a navigable structure. I would argue strongly that the Topics in South America page should be restored while discussion is ongoing, but that discussion needs to happen at Talk:Travel topics#Change to tagging travel topics. so that we can (re) solve the problem of how to organize travel topic articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me this discussion does belong on the vfd page since it seems quite obvious that all these articles, and the related categories which to my horror I have just discovered, should be deleted. However, I'll create a separate section at Talk:Travel_topics#Topics_in_... and suggest discussion continue there. Pashley (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I'm puzzled by your assertion. We discuss first, then create these new pages. Instead, these articles were created against policy, without buy-in from the community. They should be deleted unless there's a consensus that they meet policy. LtPowers (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
→ Talk:Travel topics#Change to tagging travel topics. discussed the approach of creating a breadcrumb navigation structure and was ongoing for a week without objection before changes were made, so the bar for "buy-in from the community" seems to be unreasonably high if that isn't sufficient. As to the current structure being "against policy", we already had plenty of existing "list of" articles, and the whole point of the talk page discussion was to solicit feedback and develop a policy for organizing travel topics. Now by handling this on the VFD page without first finding an alternative we'll be turning a significant portion of the Travel topics page red, breaking the current breadcrumb structure, and restoring our travel topics to a completely disorganized state. Without turning this into a rant, this also seems to be another in a long list of examples of people saying "don't do that" without proposing feasible alternatives, an approach that is undoubtedly driving away many contributors whose contributions are much needed on this site. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously that discussion was not advertised widely enough for such a sweeping, high profile change to the basic organization structure of our travel topics. Furthermore, the original proposal did not include the creation of contentless index articles like the wholly useless Topics in Argentina, nor the creation of categories paralleling that structure. Traveler100 described it as a "slight change", but it was nothing of the sort. As for the rant portion of your comment, I'd like to discuss this in depth, but the Pub is a better place for it. LtPowers (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I still think I agree with LtPowers, and I think there is quite a viable solution already proposed. But just out of respect for Ryan, I'm happy to wait until everyone is satisfied we have the right forum for consensus building. --Inas (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a (stalled) discussion ongoing at Talk:Travel_topics#Topics_in_... about what to do with these articles. This discussion hasn't reached the "consensus to keep" level required to avoid deletion, but since the referenced discussion is attempting to find a comprehensive way to organize travel topics would it be acceptable to archive this discussion for now and resolve these articles with whatever solution people agree to on the travel topics talk page? -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well clear... it seems to be a mixture of sources, parts of it to be found on Wikipedia too. In any case, copyvio, better to start clean. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
