Talk:Dorothy
From Wikitravel
[edit] VFD Discussion
[edit] Dorothy
I noticed on recent changes that someone had tagged this "vfd", but it was not listed here. I'm listing it now, though it appears to me to be a legitimate destination we should keep. Can someone who knows the area please chime in? Pashley 12:29, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- DELETE I marked it; I have actually been through this "town" which only has a name because of a Post Office, next to a railroad track. There is absolutely nothing of interest here (certainly no place to "sleep" which is a criteria). I believe someone added it to Wikitravel as a joke of some kind. Read the SEE section of the article. gamweb 12:35, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- Delete. can't sleep there. --Peter Talk 13:01, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
- Keep. Peter, I believe you misinterpret the "can't sleep there" disqualification; it is intended to address places where it's not possible, or at least legal, to sleep (lakes, day-use parks, etc.), rather than towns lacking hotels. There was a big discussion of this about a year ago IIRC. This tiny town is no less a "destination" in that regard than any number of places in, say, North Dakota that we've always accepted as appropriate for an article. And gamweb, maybe there's nothing of interest to you, but the traveler whose Uncle Egbert lives there would still have reason to refer to Wikitravel before going to visit. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- I don't remember this discussion, but this seems to me not a valid article no matter which way you slice it. I've checked this town, and there are no sights, no hotels/motels—only three establishments of any kind (all eateries/bars). I see no utility in a travel article to such a place. Another example off the top of my head is Pritchet, CO. There is one restaurant and one little shop. Anyone driving through the town will see them immediately (same goes for Dorothy), and can simply walk in and look at the menu. At most, a town/census designated area this small deserves no more than a mention in the get out section of a near town. If the traveler really needs advice on which of the three eateries to go to, he could just ask Uncle Egbert or anyone on the street. --Peter Talk 12:29, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- I tend to agree that the "can you sleep there" metric is intended to help delineate between "destinations" and "attractions", not between "destinations that get an article" and "destinations that don't". On the other hand, "Sleep" is a required section in any destination article, highlighting its importance. LtPowers 13:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Keep If we really want to be a travel guide for the world, I think we should waiver the demand for sleeping as far as actual cities is concerned. Juuuuuust my two cents Sertmann 17:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I tend to agree that the "can you sleep there" metric is intended to help delineate between "destinations" and "attractions", not between "destinations that get an article" and "destinations that don't". On the other hand, "Sleep" is a required section in any destination article, highlighting its importance. LtPowers 13:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- I don't remember this discussion, but this seems to me not a valid article no matter which way you slice it. I've checked this town, and there are no sights, no hotels/motels—only three establishments of any kind (all eateries/bars). I see no utility in a travel article to such a place. Another example off the top of my head is Pritchet, CO. There is one restaurant and one little shop. Anyone driving through the town will see them immediately (same goes for Dorothy), and can simply walk in and look at the menu. At most, a town/census designated area this small deserves no more than a mention in the get out section of a near town. If the traveler really needs advice on which of the three eateries to go to, he could just ask Uncle Egbert or anyone on the street. --Peter Talk 12:29, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- Neutral. However, if there are three places to eat/drink here, somebody has to propose where they belong (county level?) if this is not held to be a "destination". Jpatokal 23:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)
- As I see it, we're not a restaurant review site, we're a destination guide site; if a restaurant is in a town/village not worth writing about, we might as well not write about it. If we're dealing with a sparsely populated region in, say, Tusheti, and there's one nice restaurant in a small village, we should point that out either on the region page, or on a nearby town big enough to write about. But this is frikkin New Jersey!
- The "can you sleep there" rule is useful for delimiting what we will and will not write about, so we avoid using up time categorizing non-destinations like this one, and avoid cluttering our site with non-useful information. It's a waste of space to subdivide regions and link to non-towns like this. The rule is also a convenient way to dismiss out of hand pages like this, which are not useful, and were created by a certain page-creation-troll precisely to waste our time in discussions like these. --Peter Talk 13:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)
- Redirect to the county and move any worthwhile info in the article there. Pashley 20:04, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm not sure there's consensus here yet, but if there is, it's most likely for a keep. One last call for opinions, then I'll move on it tomorrow. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:28, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Keep. I'm convinced by, and agree with Bill-on-the-Hill. --Inas 22:38, 15 December 2008 (EST)
