This page was deleted per vfd, but the discussion is copied here for reference:
So this doesn't seem to be an article (Wikitravel:What is an article?) or really much of a travel topic. The more general Naturism does make sense to me as a travel topic. So here's what I think should happen:
each beach should be part of some article. A short commentary about whether nudity is permissible is appropriate. The beaches should not be segregated into a single article. Failing to do this is a slippery slope (e.g. Nude beaches near Miami etc.).
the Naturism article should probably be more general like discussing particular getaways such as pointers to Naturist resorts in particular countries or generally state that some beaches in the US permit nudity either by explicit permission or by tolerance of discrete nudity.
Any other opinions on how to handle this? -- Colin 15:04, 2 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I agree but am also not sure of how to handle this. It's not really much of an itinerary either... Jpatokal 21:02, 2 Jun 2005 (EDT)
When I copyedited this page I felt that most of the article move to articles about Fire island and the other beaches that are mentioned. However, I do not know enough about this part of New York to really do it justice, yet. Atleast with the informationall sitting here it is in one place, ready to be split up. Perhaps list as an article needing attention? Or make it a disambiguation page? -- Huttite 09:53, 7 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Naturism does, But not mere lists of places. I'd rather not segregate the beaches into article lists but rather incorporate them into their usual articles. It's kinda like Traveling with families. It's good to have an article that suggests you look at city parks as places to expunge childrens energy during travel. It's even helpful to comment on where you might generally find such parks in various countries. Individual location articles might mention the exact location of a city park and how good it is. But a list of Child friendly parks near New York City is a bad idea. -- Colin 13:56, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I do not think this article is another way of seeing travel. Unlike Big things in Australia, which crosslinks a whole lot of small places with big things in them for people to see; or an itinery, which orders a lot of destinations in a travelling route; this article contains a mishmash of destinations with advice about each. These destinations each need to be created as a stub article. Take out the specific information and you are left with a little list of place-names that could move to a New York article regional about beaches and a legal note that could move to Naturism under New York nudity laws. -- Huttite 04:46, 10 Jun 2005 (EDT)
this was my first contribution to wikitravel. it's unfortunate how negative the response was. encouragement would be nice. of course it should be changed/merged whatever but there is so little info here to merge it with. why not let articles grow organically a bit before killing them Bhny 01:20, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Thanks for your contributions! I really do think there is a place here for some of the info, just not as a region-specifc categorical list. It's not that we don't appreciate the effort, but rather that it's a slippery slope which leads to all kinds of possible "lists of X in region", and rather than "let things grow" we like to fix broken windows. So here's my constructive suggestions for you -- pehaps some of them would interest you:
Enhance Naturism with more info about the topic, worldwide attitudes, good places for travel, and so forth.
Perhaps write an Itinerary through somewhere that is Naturism-focused. For example, include popular beaches or locales, but also include historic beaches or places where events took place. Sort of a learn-more-through-travel approach.
I understand your frustration -- I really wish there were room for more info about city parks for kids when travelling. But I've come to realize that, much though I want it, it's not really within the focus of Wikitravel.