These are now unnecessary. Only the Western suburbs article has any useful content and I think all of that has been moved. Pashley (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Middlefield Connecticut is too minor to merit it's own article. It's written in 1st person and touts a whole lot. I would try to reconstruct the article, but how am I supposed to find out stuff about this place? —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talk • contribs) at 00:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly does pass the sleep test. The sleep test is not "Is there lodging available here?"; it's "Is this the type of place in which one would typically expect to find accommodations?" In other words, it is intended to distinguish between destinations and attractions, not to separate certain destinations from other destinations. Manhattan/Central Park is a valid article even though there are no hotels in the park. LtPowers (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being that Buffalo/South Buffalo doesn't pass the sleep test either, I'm inclined to take a favorable approach to your viewpoint, LtPowers. However, the actual text of Wikivoyage:What is an article?—"That is, are there any types of accommodation open to the public: hotels, hostels, campgrounds, cabins, wigwams, yurts, space station bunks, etc." (emphasis mine)—leaves little room for doubt as to its intent.
This strikes me as a policy discussion that ought to be moved to Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?. I'll start a comment thread there and hopefully we can build consensus to change the wording of wiaa.
That wording dates only to September; prior to that the text was clear that it was a test to distinguish between destinations and attractions, not between good-destinations and bad-destinations. LtPowers (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article were cleaned up and nominated for an Off the Beaten Path feature, I'd agree it doesn't have enough actual content, but if we can decouple consideration of features from the minimum necessary for an article, I could see a possibility of an article, if someone wants to do a huge amount of editing. I can understand why merging whatever is judged useful and redirecting would be the path of least resistance, though, and I don't object. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it. It looks like a nice little town, with a few things to do and a couple of places to eat. The lack of lodging is a quirk of local law, not a disqualifier. The narrative person can be changed, and the touting can be removed easily. LtPowers (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious that it could be done to our usual standards. Why should these attractions/establishments have to share a listing with everything else in town when other similar establishments in other towns get full listings to themselves? What exactly is invalid about this town as an article, aside from the fact that paid accommodations are not available, through a quirk of local law? Would we be having this conversation if there was a B&B with 4 beds in town? Or is there something else that is compelling everyone to suddenly start deeming small rural communities as unworthy of articles? LtPowers (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a quick peek on Google shows a few additional eateries and attractions in the town that are not listed in the article currently. LtPowers (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs to be written about in great detail, which is why there is a wiaa policy. My impression from what was written is that there is one highly recommended restaurant and a park worth visiting. Three sentences could take care of that pretty easily. --PeterTalk05:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you would also need to include contact information for the restaurant, the farm market, and the (two) parks. Not to mention the other restaurants I found with a Google search. LtPowers (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lt, why don't you try inserting all that stuff and turning the article into something good? If you want to do that, I repeat that we should give you a week or two to show that it can be a decent article that doesn't need merging. So would you like to take on this mission? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the area and I doubt I could capture the feel and and flavor of the town as well as the original author. Moreover, I don't see why I should have to. The article only needed a bit of de-touting and standardization (before 68.50 gutted it), and I don't know what is missing that I could add to make the article more worthy in your eyes. LtPowers (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes are not the issue; it's the eyes of everyone who wants to merge and redirect that are the issue (if you notice, I have never said I want it merged and redirected, only that I can understand why no-one would want to clean it up and would rather merge and redirect, and I don't object to that). It sounds like you could restore it to its previous touty self, detout and standardize, and make entries for the other restaurants you found with a Google search. Because if you don't take action, there's clearly no consensus to keep this article, which as you know means it will be merged and redirected. So if you care about the existence of the article, as you seem to, it looks to me like the only shot you have of convincing the people who want to merge and redirect is to take it upon yourself to make it a good article. It's not a guarantee, but there's your mission, if you choose to accept it. It's clear that merely saying you think the article should be kept is not going to work. Now, having said all that, I could easily see making Middlefield a subsection of the various relevant listing sections (See, Eat, Sleep, etc.) in Middletown. But the point is, if you want to save the article, you're going to have to do it actively, not by criticizing how someone else edited the article or regretting that people aren't seeing things your way. I want you to be given time to do that, but if you don't want to do the work, the article is clearly going to be merged and redirected, regardless of your - or my - opinion about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a generic "you", not you specifically, Ikan. But the point is I don't know what to change to make this article acceptable. I think it's already acceptable, so I don't think any changes needed to be made in order to make it worthy of keeping (that's not to say that changes weren't necessary to improve it to Usable or Guide). Everyone else here thinks it's unacceptable, but the only bases for that claim that I've seen so far are "it's too small" and "there's no place to stay". I can't fix those problems; they're inherent to the destination. If there's something else that could be fixed to mitigate those concerns, you guys need to say what that is, rather than just tell me to fix it up. Fix it up to what state? LtPowers (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you standardize everything, and people can see a bunch of well-structured "Eat" listings and other well-structured listings, either they'll decide to keep the article (as I believe I would, under such circumstances), or at least there would be better material to merge into a separate section in the Middletown guide. I hope some of the detractors speak up, but if I were you, I would act now and not wait, because I think it's the only chance for the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lack of well-formatted listings is not a valid deletion criterion, so I'm having trouble understanding how adding them would alleviate valid concerns. I guess I'd like to hear from others before I go spending a few hours working on an article that would just be deleted. LtPowers (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you on hours of work, but I'd point out that you are the only person who's seen the listings you Googled, and also that there's a psychological effect of seeing a well-formatted article that's independent of policies. My feeling is that if no-one edits this article into shape, it will definitely be merged and redirected, and if someone does, it could possibly turn the tide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Less than 5 miles from Middletown, only about 4000 people, no place to stay, could easily be covered in the Middletown article. Texugo (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. We should only ignore the "can you sleep there" requirement when there is a compelling reason to. That could be a lack of somewhere else to put the information, a compelling organizational reason that goes beyond the article (like districting schemes), or to accommodate an outlier place that has a ton of interesting sights, restaurants, or whatever. But this info could be rolled into 3-4 sentences, under one bullet point, at Middletown (Connecticut). --PeterTalk06:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My argument rested on there not being a place to sleep there. Since there apparently is one, I don't see a deletion rationale. --PeterTalk02:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said pretty explicitly that the absence of accommodations is not sufficient alone to rule out an article. But it was the only objective deletion rationale I had provided, so my "vote" was invalidated by the fact that there is in fact accommodation there. --PeterTalk20:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - I propose that we suspend this process to give LtPowers a week or two to try his hand at making this into a reasonable-looking article, and then see whether we think it should be merged or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree If we can't fix it, Merge and redirect. Again, the main problem is finding information.
Comment - I did a quick search and found one 20 room motel which I have added to the article. I suspect that the existing text in sleep is either a wind-up or out of date. Maybe somebody who knows about these quirky laws could investigate. AlasdairW (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rebuilt the page, but had to reduce it to a stub to fix it. Still, a stub is better than deletion. I will try to do more, but it's a hard call. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talk • contribs)
I don't like what you did either, but unfortunately most of the flavor and tone was touting and first-person. However, it could have been less destructive to the article. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talk • contribs)
Keep I think that, based on what LtPowers has turned up, there's enough material to keep this article for now, providing that it is edited into a reasonable-looking article. If once all the information has been put into clear listings, without any touting or first-person language, it still doesn't seem like enough for a separate article, we can revisit things at that time. But my argument would be a lot easier if the article were edited into shape, including the additional restaurant listings LtPowers found via Google. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of Wadsworth Falls State Park, including the falls themselves, is in Middlefield, though the park entrance is in Middletown. Are we keeping the article now? I don't think this looks like a good deletion candidate anymore. I inserted 2 photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now two places each to eat and drink and one place to sleep. There is still room for improvement, but I now don't see any reason to delete. I don't see a strong case for merging, but would be interested to hear from somebody that knows the area. AlasdairW (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I've been unable to contribute extensively to Wikivoyage over the past few days as the WiFi in my new apartment has not yet been installed, I have been following this discussion closely and now feel comfortable retracting my earlier vote to merge and redirect. I would also be on board for clarifying wiaa in terms of the sleep test, as LtPowers mentioned, and will indicate as much on Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, out of scope. Apparently, way back in 2005, there was a debate on this article's talk page about whether this article should be deleted, and it ended inconclusively. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite plainly, this is not an article about travel, this is an article about food. There's no information in it that can't go in individual country/region/city articles. It seems like a pretty cut-and-dried case to me, to be quite honest.
Furthermore, as far as the talk page discussion you linked me to, I am confused as to what you meant to convey. I read the discussion; it was long and cumbersome, and it appears to have ended without consensus (that is to say, without any consensus other than the fact that "Marriage in China" ended up being deleted as out of scope).
My main point in giving that link was to direct any discussion of scope there, since it does not really belong here. You are correct that the discussion there has not been conclusive. I think it is an important issue & deserves more discussion.
Keep. Lots of vegetarians travel, and it's quite important for there to be a topic that can help them strategize for their trip or even choose where to go. We also have a topic on Kashrut, which needs further development but has the same justification for existing. And we also have a topic on LGBT travel and a topic about Traveling with a criminal history. Any significant group of people with a particular identity or needs that have to be taken into account while traveling should be eligible for a topic, in my opinion. I would be upset if this topic were deleted, and not only because I recently added content and some nice photos to it. By the way, I am not a vegetarian, but the topic still interests me. Food is in any case a major reason for travel, as well as an essential thing to partake in while traveling, so the fact that the article is about food should not be disqualifying and doesn't make it not about travel. I'd like to encourage everyone to think of these kinds of travel topics as both more focused on a particular issue (in this case, traveling as a vegetarian) than any destination guide is and also as a place to link to appropriate destination guides as relevant, which is part of what I think any good travel topic that's global in scope does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This strikes me as a quintessential travel topic. Yes, it's about food. People traveling need food; that's why we have Eat sections. And this article is clearly written from a travel perspective; it talks about the unique obstacles to following your diet while on the road, and how to convey your choices to people from different cultures. This is absolutely a valid topic for us to cover, and I frankly don't understand how this could be considered out of scope. LtPowers (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is definitely travel-focused. It can easily be expanded to perhaps include places that are particularly difficult for vegetarians, probably provide a little more information specific to vegans (because they definitely have a harder time), and maybe a "Respect" section to give vegetarians and especially vegans things to keep in mind in regards to how their choice could be problematic from certain cultural perspectives and possible ways to present their eating choices in ways that may be better received by locals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a bit of a vegetarian myself, I find it quite useful. Food options is an often overlooked issue by travellers, and this guide assists them in planning their travels and not getting into any tight spots. It is just as relevant as our numerous other travel topics. It's actually a little similar to the kind of thinking that created Kosher food; speaking of which, we should have an article about Halal food. James A ▪ talk14:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not totally sold yet - for one thing, if I were a vegetarian and using Wikivoyage to gather information, I would definitely be far more likely to search for information in the "Eat" section of the respective destination articles than in the Travel Topics section, especially if the thought never occurred to me that an article like this existed. I wonder how much of this article is redundant information that's already covered in other articles. One thing the article definitely needs is a new title. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, there shouldn't be much duplication to speak of, since the article as it stands is largely location-agnostic. It does provide a brief overview of some locations and their options, but it's not the main focus of the article. The Eat section of our travel guides is for location-specific information, which wouldn't really belong in this overview article. General information such as what is found in this article doesn't belong in our destination guides because we try to avoid duplicating information in them. LtPowers (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChubbyWimbus. It's not just about food/diet, it's an article filled with advice for when people on said diet travel (and foreign travel can be pretty tough with strict diets). And I think it's actually a pretty good article! --PeterTalk22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do like the article and agree "Traveling as a vegetarian" and (and redirect from "traveling as a vegan") is a better title. Being on special diet is certainly a restriction when traveling and therefore covering the topic (and in this case in a very good way) is legitimate. The article doesn't really provide any particular help for individual locations, but this could be covered in destination articles and linked to this travel topic. I sometimes end up on bread/rice/chips diet when traveling, and find it ok for a few weeks. Danapit (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vegetarians and vegans do travel, and in some countries it might not be as easy to find an "meat free meal", therefore it's an important travel topic. However with a name like the current one, someone might think that the point of the article is "destinations where the reason for making a trip there is to sample vegetarian dishes". So I'd say change it to "traveling as a vegetarian" or something similar. Ypsilon (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a tiny remote village (see Wikipedia entry whose only claim to any tourist interest are the "ruins" of a "palace" in an abandoned "park" - see photo. Even if well-developed, the article would not be longer than a few lines, mostly consisting of information on what can NOT be found there (e.g. accommodation, gastronomy). PrinceGloria (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I wanted to do (redirect), but I thought I need to go through VfD when the place article has some content. BTW, I do not think this content fits into the Kujawsko-Pomorskie article as it stands. Once we get to this level of details, somebody might one day mention it - perhaps even when the region is covered by several sub-regional articles. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, we don't like leaving placenames that someone could be searching for as redlinks. Redirect is appropriate here, even if there's no content merge. LtPowers (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be appropriate since it has little to no info to merge too. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talk • contribs)
The IP-only commenter seems to be confused about the effective difference between redirection and deletion. The main reason we redirect real places is that the place name will still pop up in the search box after being redirected, and it will point the searcher to wherever the article was redirected to. Contrarily, deleting this article - on top of obliterating its edit history, and on top of the fact that undeleting an article that's deleted is a cumbersome process - would keep the odd individual who would actually be searching for Nowy Dwór Królewski from being pointed in the right direction. The amount of information in the to-be-redirected article is irrelevant. It's possible, and not at all unusual, to redirect without merging. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The palace information should be placed in the redirected article however, I would suggest writing your own description of the history/significance of the palace, since nothing but the name is mentioned in the article itself. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed "palace" is just a ruined former residence built in 1875, the size of a small detached house, of no significance whatsoever apart from it being (quite) old. It might seem like something interesting, but there are literally thousands of those across Poland (every larger village should have one due to the proliferation of local nobility), and hundreds of them in much better state and with some significance because of their historic role, unique beauty et al.
According to my press search, the last significant event in the village's history was when a tractor and a trailer burned down, causing a furore among the 100+ local residents as they had to call for a fire engine from a neighbouring village.
There really cannot be anything written about it than a kind piece advice of not bothering to go there, which could apply to many other villages across KujPom. I believe we only mention actual destinations in WV, not place that actually aren't them. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chełmno, a town 10km South. Unless the palace is open to visitors, I don't think that there is anything to merge as the outside of the palace is hardly worth crossing the road to look at. The only drawback is that the Polish WP article on Nowy Dwór Królewski will continue to link to WT. AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued, AlasdairW, but I'm curious to hear your rationale for redirecting to Chełmno rather than Kujawsko-Pomorskie. I guess my question is, what is the relationship between Chełmno and Nowy Dwór Królewski? Is the latter a suburb (or rough equivalent) of the former, or are these merely two towns that happen purely by chance to be geographically close to one another?
Without knowing with 100% certitude whether there's a policy or precedent that says otherwise, my educated guess is that we ought to limit the phenomenon of redirecting stubs about minor towns to nearby larger ones (rather than region articles) to cases where the smaller town is a satellite community to the larger one. I know next to nothing about Poland, so I'm unable to say whether your suggestion is appropriate per that interpretation.
As far as I know, we usually prefer to redirect to a nearby town because we usually prefer to keep region articles free of bottom-level listing details, putting any potential listings for the redirected destination into a city article. When full listings start creeping into region articles, people get confused about where to put things - someone sees two hotel listings in the region, not realizing they belong to a destination for which we have decided not to have a article, and thinks that their recommendation should be there too, despite the fact that it may be in a different city for which we do have an article. Texugo (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I choose to redirect to a town because I thought that any listings that were added for Nowy Dwór Królewski would be better in a town than added to a region article. If the palace was added to the region, it would suggest to readers that it was major attraction when we are not sure if it should be listed at all. Nowy Dwór Królewski is in Chełmno County. I don't know this area of Poland, but I have been to the country a couple of times. AlasdairW (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Small correction to the above - I misread the map - Chełmno is 12km NW (Chełmża is 10km S), but Nowy Dwór Królewski is in Chełmno County and we don't have an article for Chełmża. I don't have a strong opinion on where to redirect to, and am happy to go with alternatives. AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
André, I guess my point was that any future listings that may be added would be guided toward the region article rather than a town article, which as Alasdair commented, makes it look like they are big important things when they may not be. Redirecting it to the nearest city means any potential listings would more likely be added there, and in any case, whether or not the two towns have cultural or other ties, the nearest bigger town is still the most likely place a traveller would be visiting from. Texugo (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Texugo, you needn't worry. The entry if for a depopulating village of less than 200 people. Should there ever, forever be a listing placed anywhere for any POI in Nowy Dwór Królewski, we should be able to deal with it.
Am I to understand that we are reaching a consensus for clearing the Nowy Dwór Królewski article and turning it into a redirect to Chełmno without merging in any content into the latter? Should nobody care to oppose until Monday, I shall consider it a consensus by fiat and carry the conclusion forward. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever made that last comment at me, I'm not worried about this particular case of Nowy Dwór Królewski, I'm just talking about precedent and standard practice and the reasons we have for doing it that way. I would definite not like to see us start swinging toward redirecting to the region article rather than the nearest town, for the reasons I stated above, and I'm not convinced that this particular case has any good reason to diverge from our standard practice. Texugo (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These templates do nothing but add a little icon before the text "Done" or "Not done" (or custom text if you like). The icons are just pointless decorations; typing the wikitext '''Done''' is just as easy and saves a template call. LtPowers (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not done is not necessary, but {{done}} is useful at easily and visually signifying when a request is complete. The instance where I used it (and I presume you noticed it) is probably not the best example. James A ▪ talk13:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it several times yesterday, but yes, your recent use of it was the tipping point. It wasn't anything specific to that use, it was just proof that it was becoming more widespread. That said, since you say it's not the best example, I think it does point out that the presence of the templates inspires laziness and decreases editor engagement. LtPowers (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of use would be to respond to a request, but in that instance, it was more of a reply to a confirmation to go ahead with the proposal. James A ▪ talk07:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are pretty standard on Wikimedia projects... but then I can't say that I've ever used either, since we don't have many processes where that would be super helpful like other Wikimedia sites do. --Rschen775403:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with plain text. I would vote to delete them both, as they didn't pass through the proposal process and we traditionally have avoided introducing little doo-dads for discussion pages, but seeing as how the templates are common on other Wikimedia projects, people will probably try to use them. If we just replace them with plain text, we can avoid getting doodads or red links while subtly demonstrating that we don't generally encourage such mini-icons. Texugo (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since "Both of them are pretty standard on Wikimedia projects" and at worst they are harmless here. We want to make it as convenient as possible for Wikimedians from outside WV to contribute here; there are important policy differences such folk will need to adapt to, like no NPOV and not using citations/external links, but we should avoid creating unnecessary differences. Pashley (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone with enough experience on wikis to be declaring certain tasks "Done" on Wikivoyage is smart enough to figure out what to do when one of the world's simplest templates isn't available for stating one of the world's simplest sentences. LtPowers (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. I thought we were going to avoid debating templates on the vfd page? That was one of the main reasonings behind {{experimental}}. Shouldn't we just discuss them on the template talk pages? --PeterTalk18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Pashley says, they are standard template on wiki projects, furthermore at a very first glance of a discussion page, it's quick to get what has been done and don't. See this page for example where I've used them, also because I think this is the cause of this discussion:-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do the green checks provide that the simple presence or absence of text in that column does not? Really, it seems like we're grasping at straws here. LtPowers (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're easier to see and do no harm I can think of. I will weigh in on the side of what seems at least a near-consensus to Keep "Done" and Delete "Not done." Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another outline highway article for a random segment of highway. Does not meet the criteria for a marked-route exception to our "no articles about highways" guideline and may be rather random if retooled as an itinerary in itself.
Er, isn't this potentially a legitimate subregion of Ulster County? I'm not sure where the other (redlinked) regions are intended to be, but this reads (and is treated) more like a subregion than a highway article. LtPowers (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right here: this isn't an article about the road, rather the area surrounding it. Therefore, perhaps keep and rename? --Nicktalk15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a bit of a point there, but... do we really need sub-county divisions here? There are currently only 9 articles under this county, and we don't have any real need to go creating lots of stubs for the other few pop. 500-1000 communities that exist there.Texugo (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that's a potentially different discussion. If the corridor is considered an actual travel region, it should be redirected to Ulster County, not deleted. (Also, Route 28 is a real scenic route and could be the legitimate topic of an itinerary article, but it's much larger than just Ulster County.) LtPowers (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. With the abbreviated parenthetical, I somehow doubt that "Route 28 Corridor (Ulster)" is a likely search term worthy of redirecting. Even if it had the full "(Ulster County)" on there, I doubt it would be a likely search term. Texugo (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Utility as a search term isn't the criterion. The thrust of the policy is that there's no inherent reason that oblivion is preferable to redirection, so the default is to redirect—even when the marginal benefit of redirection is extremely small. --PeterTalk03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
