Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stages of the Via Francigena


 * 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 to Via Francigena.  MBisanz  talk 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stages of the Via Francigena

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT a travel guide. If deemed encyclopedically necessary, a compact list of the stages should first be included in the main article, Via Francigena, before being spun off again. In its current state, with no useful sourcing and written in a mostly inappropriate tone, the article is not a useful basis for such a spinoff and can be deleted.  Sandstein  10:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge compacted list to Via Francigena as suggested by the nominator. A lot of sources in the article on the stages is off, but I'm pretty sure the sources already in the main articles would cover this information. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect depending on whether there is anything worth merging. This article is too much like a travel guide to keep in this form. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not my content. I just moved it from the Via Francigena page as it was overwhelming the encyclopedic content and did some (very) minor cleaning up as it was so poorly written. I'm not a deletionist so I would leave it so that someone else can clean it up. IMO the travel guide parts of it should go but the stages part can stay. reinthal (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep reinthal's rationale for forking it is legitimate. However it is a very poorly constructed article.  My only reason for tbinking that it might be kept is that the original author may put it back into the main article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2008 (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.