Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Italy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (copyvio text already removed) CDC   (talk)  20:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tourism in Italy
As it now stands, this article is a tiny stub not about Tourism in Italy, but about Italy; and historically, the article has been a magnet for link spam. There is nothing in this that, if it has any value at all, doesn't belong under Italy. An article about Tourism in Italy would presumably be about the encouragement of tourism, tourism incentives, the tourism business, revenues from tourism, the breakdown of what kind of tourists they get, etc. Nobody is writing this &#8212; I'm not about to &#8212; and if someone does, at least until it gets substantial, it can be put as a section under Italy. Bill 01:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Italy to encourage readers and helpful contributors to go to the right place until we have enough to break this article out on its own. -- Jonel 03:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete a large chunk of this article appears to have been cut and pasted from here . Possible copyvio. JamesBurns 09:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Italy. Jamyskis 10:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Italy to encourage editing and remove this version from the history if it turns out to be a copyvio. Mgm|(talk) 11:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Part of a large series of articles about national tourism. These articles do describe common tourist destinations. I don't see a good reason to make an exception just for Italy, which has a significant tourism industry. :) &mdash; RJH 15:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * obvious keep ever heard of Rome? Florence? Pompeii? Venice? Pisa? Dunc|&#9786; 18:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What grounds do you have for deletion? It could easily become a long article. ··gracefool |&#9786; 01:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have indeed heard of Rome (on which my own website runs to 600 pages), Venice, etc. All of these places have their own articles. "Tourism in Italy" suggests, not to belabor the point, that the article is about tourism, in Italy. Which this article, currently, is not. I agree with Gracefool that it could easily become a long article: but with not one shred of the stuff currently in it. (Hint: you want an article about tourism in Italy, write it yourself! The hotel industry, the economic impact of tourism, the foreign currency brought into the country, the training of hotelkeepers and restaurateurs, the value of tourism for the country's image, the government institutes that train tourism workers, endless etc.'s, absolutely: no shortage of material. Have at it!) But vague comments about Florence, and link spam to whatever website owner (out of many thousands out there) happens to add here, and hyperbole about how beautiful Italy is and how much stuff it's got (couldn't agree more), doesn't make an article.... Bill 02:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Falphin 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would vote Keep and cleanup if not a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of very good articles were once a lot worse than this. Oliver Chettle 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Good Stub start for what can be a whole series of interesting Artys. Could act as a magnet for tentative editors as people planning a trip stumble across and add to it. Suggest the flaming sarcasims above be avoided in future discussions. An article on tourism will definitely have a whole different format and set of acceptable editorial practices than a factual article on Italy.  The later would certainly be dotted with GDP, Resources, Population, and other statistical compilations, whereas the tourism article would focus pretty much on fun stuff.  If someone is severely insulted by it's short nature, I daresay a visit to the local library will turn up several references that can lead to expansion.
 * wrt this (opening) comment: "An article about Tourism in Italy would presumably be about the encouragement of tourism, tourism incentives, the tourism business, revenues from tourism, the breakdown of what kind of tourists they get, etc.", This article should perhaps be renamed Tourism In Italy (Guide) as I interpret the authors intent, with the drier factual matters allocated to a heading in the Italy article. Fabartus 01:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .