Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayward Forest Canoe Route (2nd nomination)


 * 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  speedy keep, since a transwiki move (rather than deletion) is proposed.  Mini  apolis  15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sayward Forest Canoe Route
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This really needs to be nipped in the bud before 100s of these kinds of articles start to appear. WP is not a travel guide book, as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Move it to Wikivoyage, then delete here. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy close per WP:SK1 as the nominator advocates an action (Transwiki) other than deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think the spirit of WP:NOTGUIDE must necessarily apply to this article; the policy seems focused mainly on the exclusion of minutiae useful only to travelers from articles about places. If this article contained a step-by-step guide to completing the route with minor details about resting places and such, then I think that content would fall afoul of the policy, but the article's existence in itself doesn't necessarily make it a guide. Meanwhile, there appears to be significant independent coverage of this route in reliable sources. See this book and this magazine story. While a lot of the material about it is guidebook-type stuff, there's enough to show that it's a popular route that's received some coverage, and there's enough to write an article with. It meets WP:GNG. The WP:SK1 argument is also a fair one. --Batard0 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2013 (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.