Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in the United States


 * 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 KEEP. Mo0 [ talk ] 05:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tourism in the United States
 Delete (or massively rewrite ) . I have been watching this page for a while now and doubt that it can ever truly be NPOV. The included links are arbitrary, it would seem. Typically I would want to clean up a page like this, but I'm not sure how it could be done in an NPOV manner. I'd certainly withdraw the AfD nom if this article improves substantially. I would love to see this go from a list of random tourist sites in the US to an article about the tourism industry in the US. Nationalparks 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, there are 'tourism in' type articles for most countries and regions (Tourism in France,Tourism in England, etc). Its certainly a valid spin-off from the main subject, and its current trailer park state should warrant heavy editing, not deletion.  Why do you feel it cold never be NPOV?  Kuru  talk  22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the choice of links is inherently POV. What is the cutoff for articles to include in this?  Why include Zion National Park if you aren't including Mount Rainier National Park?  Why include the cities in the list, but not others?  Where do you draw the line?  Inclusion of the articles might imply that one park or site or city is definitely better than another, hence my POV concerns.  I wouldn't mind an expansion of the lead paragraph (but in generic terms) and a removal of the list items entirely.  Nationalparks 22:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think that would be the solution - drop the unbounded list of random tourist attractions and turn the entire thing into a regional and topical narratives with a couple of key examples each. Don't forget to add a section on the Biggest ball of twine (joke).  Doesn't seem like there are too many editors, so it should be relatively easy to get consensus on the talk page; or just be bold and drop 'em.   Kuru  talk  22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and someone will improve it sometime. Ramseystreet 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kuru. C.f. Category:Tourism by country. I'd like to recommend listing this page on Cleanup. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but wow, what a mess. If anything, it should be blanked, have a new lead paragraph written, and then stubified until it can get more attention. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kuru, though I agree that the article needs further work. --Elonka 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kuru, the article should improve over time. Yamaguchi先生 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious speedy keep. It's POV? so fix it. But the subject is most definitely encyclopedic. I don't even mind if someone completely blanks the page and starts from scratch. There are many such pages on national tourism that are fine. Pascal.Tesson 03:33, 28 July 2006 (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.