Please see Wikitravel:What is an article - articles about attractions such as ballparks are out of scope for Wikitravel. Information in this article should be merged to the appropriate district article of Boston and this article should then be redirected appropriately. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:00, 8 March 2012 (EST)
 Unmerging Fenway from Foot Itinerary from Boston Article: Genre Conventions
I have unmerged this article. Here I provide a description of the rational explaining why. I have developed these arguments based on stated information in the Wikitravel that outlines how users are to contribute to intineraries, and I have supported these arguments with evidence. Rather than stating that this contribution is not within the scope of wikitravel, and leaving it at that, I am going to make a case that this is is an appropriate contribution to Wikitravel. Namely, I make this argument because this page clearly meets the following description of an itinerary:
An itinerary is an article that describes a path through several destinations or attractions, giving suggestions of where to stop, what to see, how to prepare, etc. If you think of our destination guides as dots on a map, an itinerary describes a line that connects those dots. Some itineraries may be on a formal, or relatively well-defined route, such as the Oodnadatta Track, the Appalachian Trail or Route 66. Others may be more informal — One month in Southeast Asia, Across Canada by train, or others. Itineraries are a meta-view of the destination guides. They're another way of seeing travel — not by where you go, but by how you get there.
This article is a meta-view of this destination, and it provides travelers with a way of experiencing a place that is more detailed and that outlines how one gets to a place in a specific way. The greatest counter-argument to this may be based on scope: i.e., such a focused view of place is not appropriate for wikitravel. This is a reasonable argument logically, but functionally it, then, discounts a number of useful itineraries that could be envisioned simply based on a view of genre as a container instead of genre as a negotiated and evolving set of relations about what type of expectations readers bring to the table.
The larger question, then, becomes can we see specific attractions a places within themselves. Wikitravel as a whole seems to argue for non-standard views of place, in fact, Wikitravel states that places are not exclusively defined by legalistic, jurisdictional ways of framing location. That users may define place in different and unique ways. For example, while South County, Rhode Island is what locals call the Southern portion of the state, it is legally named Washington County. South County doesn't not legally exist. Some users have made these revisions for South County to Washington County and vice-versa. Really who cares? Should it matter? Who gets to decide which place name is right, correct? Such actions within this space, WIkitravel, demonstrate that writing here is a location where contested understandings of location play out. That is a reality.
But, are there useful itineraries that could be created about specific locations? That pay attention to the vast richness of single attractions? I think there are and can be such kinds of itineraries. Perhaps you disagree? And, that is ok, you are entitled to that view, but perhaps, this should be considered more thoughtfully before simply labeling this "beyond the scope of WIkitravel". The scope of Wikitravel is defined by its users and it's contributors, it is a writing ecology, anad some authors will consider that ecology differently. I vote that this one stays.