No sooner had I deleted this (in conformity to the VFD guilty-until-proven-innocent policy) than it dawned on me that a mistaken standard may have been applied in the VFD discussion. The discussion was treating it as though it was a destination, and hence inappropriate on the grounds of our Wikitravel:Bodies of water policy, when in fact it's more sensibly treated as a region in Greece, in which guise it's a perfectly sensible article. Some countries, Greece prominent among them, are probably better defined region-wise by the bodies of water around them than by artifical dry-land distinctions. Let's discuss. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:14, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Does Greece need it as a region though? If someone's doing a reordering of the Greece heirarchy and they think it does then I don't see why it can't be recreated then... I'm not familiar with Greece but unless the region isn't already covered by another current article(s) I'm not sure we should undelete it... but just be lenient if it comes up for discussion again – cacahuatetalk 02:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)
In general, I think any even remotely reasonable regions should be at least redirected in the right direction, not deleted outright. In this case, the gulf appears to be contained within the existing article of Magnesia.
And now a more important question: where in the world can I find Copasetic Gulf? Jpatokal 04:18, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I agree, emphatically. More-or-less any name users might reasonably be expected to search for — examples include Bombay, Burma, West Indies, Taj Mahal — should be a redirect if there isn't an article for it. Same goes for region names, neighborhoods in a city, and so on. Pashley 04:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)
OK, so un-deletion as a redirect to Magnesia is the way to go, per consensus? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)
So it's been re-created as a redirect. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)