Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attractions in Sydney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Tourism in Sydney. --MuZemike 00:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of attractions in Sydney[edit]
- List of attractions in Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unscoped, unreferenced, unorganised and seemingly random collection of items.
- Redirect to Tourism in Sydney. Moondyne (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but... - once I was going to suggest renaming "Tourism in Sydney" => List of Attractions in Sydney". After all, that's all that article is. A compilation of attractions in Sydney. Barely any discussion of tourism in Sydney. There are plenty of lists (most?) on wikipedia that are "unscoped, unreferenced", disorganised and random. I'm not saying that is good, but this doesn't seem to be an accepted standard as far as lists go. :) --Merbabu (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that rename. Neither article is particularly special, and we certainly don't need two. Moondyne (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need Tourism in Sydney as it currently stands? Indeed, they are both essentially the same and suffer the same problems you described - with the exception that one is padded out with info from the individual attraction articles they link to. I'm leaning towards deleting the tourism "article" and keeping the list. Happy to hear the counter argument. :) --Merbabu (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer Tourism in Sydney as a starting point for a merge, as its at least got some organisation. Moondyne (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, changed to delete. Then we should work out what to do with the other. --Merbabu (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I agree with Moondyne if consensus becomes merge. I was almost tempted to recommend Tourism in Sydney for deletion per WP:NOTTRAVEL but on second thought think it is a good candidate for becoming more encyclopedic if someone wished to comment on the travel industry within the city and add facts and figures on the size of said industry. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshua, that's exactly my thoughts on the Tourism in Sydney article. I'd be happy to do the big chop/stubbing now if people are supportive. THat article suffers the same problems of scope and the basic fact that currently it reads like a tourist's to-do list. --Merbabu (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I agree with Moondyne if consensus becomes merge. I was almost tempted to recommend Tourism in Sydney for deletion per WP:NOTTRAVEL but on second thought think it is a good candidate for becoming more encyclopedic if someone wished to comment on the travel industry within the city and add facts and figures on the size of said industry. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, changed to delete. Then we should work out what to do with the other. --Merbabu (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer Tourism in Sydney as a starting point for a merge, as its at least got some organisation. Moondyne (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need Tourism in Sydney as it currently stands? Indeed, they are both essentially the same and suffer the same problems you described - with the exception that one is padded out with info from the individual attraction articles they link to. I'm leaning towards deleting the tourism "article" and keeping the list. Happy to hear the counter argument. :) --Merbabu (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that rename. Neither article is particularly special, and we certainly don't need two. Moondyne (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Tourism in Sydney, per WP:PRESERVE. The article is comprised of many links to other articles, and the addition of them to the Tourism in Sydney article would improve it. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city." The lead suggests this list includes surrounding areas which seems to be a no-no. Moreover, this information is better gathered in a category, and what do you know? There is already a category that includes more complete information in Category:Visitor attractions in Sydney. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is part of the Category:Lists of attractions by city Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, what, exactly, is an "attraction"? Wikipedia is not a travel brochure. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Support comments per Northamerica and Moondyne regarding merge SatuSuro 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Tourism in Sydney Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.