Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snorkeling locations

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 delete. Kurykh 20:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snorkeling locations[edit]

Listcruft, bordering on advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising does not seem an issue but would be an endless list. WP is not a guide book. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitravel perhaps? I'm not terribly familiar with the project, so I'm not sure it's appropriate there. But yeah, doesn't belong here: WP:NOT#TRAVEL. -Verdatum (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Vote by article creator.) Cite a WP page that says this is not appropriate content. I do not think WP:NOT#TRAVEL is applicable, as this is not a guide to any one place, but rather a list of all places that support one activity. In what way is it substantially different from the many other such lists such as, for example, List of auto racing tracks? The list of snorkeling locations is potentially long; but long is not bad, merely encyclopedic. — Epastore (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I started this article based on diving locations. The snorkeling locations article at least cites useful links and has relatively neutral descriptions, while the diving locations article seems to be just lists of places where Wikipedians have dived (since, given the diverse nature of diving, absolutely any body of water is potentially a diving location). I would not think of deleting snorkeling locations if diving locations is not first considered for deletion. — Epastore (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree, I would also like to see a page that more explicitly says this is not appropriate. Still, Other Stuff Exists is not a valid argument to keep a page. The community will fix other pages to meet concensus when it gets to them. This article looks like good information, so I would much rather see it put in its appropriate place than deleted entirely (and if it's already in its appropriate place, then jolly good). -Verdatum (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diving locations also nominated for deletion, same reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is curious that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diving_locations seems to be leaning toward a keep/merge, while this page seems to be leaning toward a delete. Regardless of "other stuff exists," why should these two discussions be so disparate, when the scope of each article is equally nebulous? — Epastore (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also found it somewhat curious that the two discussions are following to such different results. Of course, the two articles are quite different as well, don't forget. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide, nor is it a directory. Snorkeling is possible in any nody of water, the list tries to constrain itself by using 'popular' sites but none of them are referenced to establish this popularity. Nuttah (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a meaningless, overgeneralized, list. Pastordavid (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (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.