Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diving locations


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Merge, with recreational diving. It is clear that whilst WP:NOT is not completely applicable to the content of this discussion's subject, rough consensus shows that concerns regarding this policy are present. Merging with an encyclopedic entry will satisfy these concerns, yet allow the article's legitimate content to continue to be available to our readers.

In addition, the "Merge" outcome provides the largest extent of satisfaction to the varying angles of rough consensus expressed available, in that it allows a logical midpoint between "WP:NOT is not applicable" comments and "WP:NOT is applicable". Anthøny 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Diving locations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) "An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to re-create content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, popular eating guides, gazeteers, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however."
 * Merge to recreational diving. Powers T 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, agree with, there seem to be some bits that could be merged, though the article itself could then be deleted with a redirect instead. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a travel guide doesn't apply to this article. This is the aformentioned policy:

The article doesn't go into any detail about specific sites, it isn't trying to sell anything, it's a legit article. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, it actually does. See the second to last sentence: "Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction". Therefore I agree that this list needs to go. Punkmorten (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a fine article which discusses the general properties of good diving locations and then provides some general geographical links and details. It is not a directory/guide.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Recreational diving, which could use expansion with this sort of content. The title "Diving locations" isn't particularly good, and while the content is useful it doesn't need to exist as a separate article.  PKT (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - good concept, notable, but the cruft has to go. Retitle? Merge? Bearian (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Split - Merge content on top into Recreational diving; rename bottom half (and article in general) as List of popular diving locations. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.