Why this was redirected
I redirected this to Jackson (Wyoming), on the grounds that
- Jackson already has a semi-well-developed article that explains the nuances separating "Jackson" and "Jackson Hole", and covers several Jackson Hole attractions/services;
- Skiing is only one of the things to do there;
- The precedent that is emerging -- see Talk:Colorado#Ski_Resorts? -- is for ski resorts only to get their own article if they're stand-alone and more significant than the community servicing them. I don't believe that's the case for the resort at Jackson Hole.
There is room for discussion on this, and if someone wants to justify a stand-alone article and fill it with content, I certainly don't object. Just no spam, please; the original article clearly didn't belong, and Colin did well to replace it with an empty outline, sorry to say. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:06, 9 December 2006 (EST)
- I think this sounds fine. The only counterargument I can give is that many people thing "Jackson Hole" is the name of the/a town, and that it's the better-known name. But this system seems more accurate and correct, and if we have the redirect, things are OK by me. --Evan 21:29, 9 December 2006 (EST)