Delete. This article has no real focus, and while noted as an itinerary, doesn't actually highlight any sort of route. At the moment it just seems to duplicate the purpose of the East Asia article from a somewhat ethnocentric point of view. I don't see any value in watching this develop as an article, and if what the creator was trying to say about contrasts needs to be said, it can be covered succinctly and more eloquently at East Asia – cacahuatetalk 02:31, 21 January 2009 (EST)
Keep. Deletion policy says: "Article entries should not be deleted from the site when a legitimate article can be written for the subject. Some examples: ... Really bad articles. Sometimes articles are a sloppy mess, or just a bunch of notes and ideas. These articles should be improved rather than deleted."
This is not even a really bad article, just a somewhat bad article in need of more work. Pashley 09:56, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Using that rationale we would never delete a travel topic. Travel topics and itineraries need a good focus to be useful, they don't really seem to work as stubs for the most part, unless it's something straightforward like packing. In practice, I don't think that line applies to these types of articles at all, but more to the destination guides, and should probably be clarified – cacahuatetalk 10:49, 11 February 2009 (EST)
This is far from a stub, though; there's quite a bit of material. I think it has potential. Pashley 20:52, 11 February 2009 (EST)
There's nothing about it right now that doesn't apply to and belong at East Asia.... and a lot of text, but imo mostly fluff.... if you think there's useful info, I suggest copying it over there before this gets deleted, it's already been 14 days.... with no compelling arguments brought to keep it – cacahuatetalk 21:11, 12 February 2009 (EST)
Merge and redirect. I don't see any reason to keep this information separate from East Asia. It's not an itinerary, and as a travel topic, I think it would serve only to needlessly duplicate (and fragment) travel content. Merging would be useful though—our continent and continental section articles tend to be really underdeveloped. --PeterTalk 22:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)
DeleteThis page contains information about the entire continent of Asia, not simply East Asia, as Southeast Asia is also included. It reads like a Wikipedia article, NOT a travel itinerary. The idea of having a tour of contrasts is interesting, but this "tour" is is not a tour. It doesn't list any actual attractions or even specific countries that one should visit in order to see the "contrast of Asia". It just lists the nations. For someone looking to tour Asia, there is nothing of use on this page... If you DO redirect it, it should be redirected to the continental page (Asia) not the East Asia page. ChubbyWimbus 08:32, 21 February 2009 (EST)
My opinion has changed to delete. Chubby makes a good point. iGuide also has identical text at ; did they get it from us or is this article a copyvio? Pashley 09:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)
There's discussion on the talk page as far back as 2004 wondering what the point of this article is, and no point has emerged in more than four years since, so it's not likely to develop a point now. (And note that no pages link to it.) The content is vague and almost completely useless — beginning with the sterling nugget "Planning your travel is generally a good idea." It's the Wikitravel equivalent of a dictionary definition for the word 'is'. If you don't already know that you should plan your trip before you make it to Wikitravel, you're never going to learn. Gorilla Jones 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)
I can't really object to any of your points, but I should point out that all good dictionaries do include a definition for the word "is". Likewise, it could be argued that a comprehensive travel site should include travel planning information. LtPowers 20:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Delete. Lets stay focused on real articles and travel topics, rather than these vague and general ideas. (If I were working on wiktionary, I'd be in favor of deleting is as well). --Inas 01:21, 6 January 2009 (EST)
I'd bet you can't find a single comprehensive English dictionary that doesn't include the word "is". LtPowers 07:17, 6 January 2009 (EST)
I'd bet you're right — that's a good subject for writers of English dictionaries to chew over. Gorilla Jones 23:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Delete. A little too general and fundamental to be useful. And as noted on the talk page, the article doesn't even have much to do with the title. --PeterTalk 21:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Advertising, no links to or from it. Anything worth copying somewhere? Pashley 09:30, 18 February 2009 (EST)
Keep - The conent is barely advertising, unless you consider information about accommodation to be advertising. I thought giving information about accomodation was one Wikitravel's goals. Although this place is listed in Cotopaxi#Sleep, (and the content could easily improve that listing, making a redirect of it), I couldn't decide if Secret Garden was simply the name of the accommodation or if it was the name of a place that the accommodation was named after. If it was merged with Cotopaxi, it would imply that we then need a Cotopaxi National Park article, because this one suggests the Cotopaxi Valley is bigger than just the National Park. I think more work is needed with this one, using information from someone who knows the area, rather than just deleting it on sight. - Huttite 09:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Delete - I don't think Ms. Katherine named her lodge after some native locale name; this is clearly posted by someone wanting to attract business. If "Secret Garden" is a locally used name (which i highly doubt) then please give me some evidence to that end. Texugo 16:00, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Delete - We don't have articles for accommodation listings, and currently that is what this is. I'm surprised this isn't just speedied, like the many other business that create articles that are currently deleted for not being articles. --Inas 18:48, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Misguided dupe of places in San Diego. Is this worth even redirecting somewhere, or just nuke it? Jpatokal 22:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)
We should give the user a chance to copy any information over to the San Diego article, then delete. Or we could create a dummy page at Attractions and protect it to head off future mistakes of this sort. LtPowers 10:47, 16 January 2009 (EST)
Delete. Slippery slope if we start creating dummy articles of pages that could be created by accident. --Inas 00:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I don't see how that's a slippery slope. A slippery slope toward what? LtPowers 09:41, 31 January 2009 (EST)
It is one thing to create redirects for common spelling mistakes, desination name variations, popular destination searches. They all seem valid cases for a redirect. Its also a convenience for some things that are int the wikitravel: namespace. However, this seems to take this one step further. Are we now saying that we are not going to delete completely invalid article names, that can never be articles, and will never be validly searched for? Thats the slope I think is slippery --Inas 20:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Redirect to Wikitravel:Listings - If it is getting created as a dummy article now, someone will surely do it again soon. If we point it at an article at talks about how to list attractions, maybe they will read it first and do what it says. Huttite 06:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Redirect - I have no idea how the user thought that would be an adequate name for San Diego attractions, but I do think it could be a search term for someone looking to add attraction listings. Texugo 21:13, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Let's harvest information and incorporate into the main Washington, D.C. article, it's a good idea, but I do think it belongs better in a Washington on a budget section in the guide. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 08:41, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Merge with Washington D.C. sounds like a good idea. My other question would be under $300 for how long? - a minute, an hour, a day, a night, a week, a year, a purchase or a visit? The frame of reference makes a difference. - Huttite 06:57, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Delete. I see no real reason for redirection. Maybe to merge some of the information makes sense. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:32, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Delete. if only because the title is bad. "Washington DC on a budget" or "Washington DC on $300 a week" might be worthwhile; this can never be. Pashley 07:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Another San Diego travel topic which strikes me as unnecessary. While there may be some useful info here, the article seems woefully inadequate, since you'd probably be hard-pressed to find much of anything in San Diego that's unfriendly to disabled travelers. To cover everything would require a gigantic article much too big for us, and seeing as there isn't any similar article for any other city, I think we should just get rid of this one. PerryPlanetTalk 19:41, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Keep - But as a Redirect. What about merging the content with San Diego and/or enhancing Disabled travellers and its sub articles? Much of the non-San-Diego-specific advice is probably going to be relevant to any disabled traveler. Perhaps a mention about how disabled (un?)friendly the place is generally in the Get Around section. It strikes me the topic is not just about travel but also facilities, so any listings of the attractions should also mention how they cater for disabled patrons. There is a big assumption in the article that Disabled means Wheelchair bound - travelling on wheels, rather than feet is just one aspect of being disabled. What about the Blind, with their guide dogs; the Deaf, with hearing aids and induction loops; or any number of special medical conditions that don't affect mobility but do cause a disability. - Huttite 03:50, 19 January 2009 (EST)
I agree, there is too much of an emphasis on the wheelchair bound. But anyway - Reading the article again, I don't see any non-San-Diego-specific advice in here. I'm fine with putting general info about disabled travel in San Diego on the San Diego article (such as in the Get Around section, like you said), but I think this should only be done if there is something unique about being a disabled traveler here versus any other major U.S. city, and in this case there really isn't. As for ensuring that "any listings of the attractions should also mention how they cater for disabled patrons", the big issue I have with that is that just about every attraction in a major tourist destination like San Diego will cater to disabled travelers in one way or the other. Do we really want to go to the trouble of putting the phrase "wheelchair-accessible" on every single attraction listing? PerryPlanetTalk 21:14, 24 January 2009 (EST)
The presumption, at least for U.S. locations, should be in favor of disabled access; we should only point out difficulties, not accommodations, that might affect disabled travelers. LtPowers 10:54, 25 January 2009 (EST)
A travel topic article which strikes me as rather unnecessary. Antique shopping in San Diego doesn't strike me as being any more unique or much different than antique shopping in any other city of San Diego's size. I've copied the listings to the Buy sections of their respective articles, so I think we should just delete it. PerryPlanetTalk 19:41, 18 January 2009 (EST)
If you've copied the listings, we should probably either redirect or delete only after doing a page history merge, in order to preserve the history. If not, just deleteing is fine. Cheers, JYolkowski 19:54, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Sorry, but how do you do a page history merge? I'm afraid I haven't done one of those yet. Anyway, I didn't copy them exactly (I had to format them a little) but they are mostly the same. So I'm not sure which direction you want me to take here... PerryPlanetTalk 21:17, 24 January 2009 (EST)
If the page was moved to San Diego, which deletes the San Diego article, then ALL the San Diego edits were restored (unless there are some deleted ones already) then the last good San Diego page was edited to bring it back to the top, that meres the page history. Check my deletion log, I did a page history merge the other day for a town in Morroco. - Huttite 06:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Redirect to San Diego is better Huttite 06:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Given that when you move a page, the original is kept as a redirect article anyway, it might make more sense to just redirect it rather than not deal with all that confusing stuff by merging (I also don't know how you restore edits), since redirecting will also preserve the page history. But I'd still rather just delete it. PerryPlanetTalk 21:32, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Yes, as I said a, Redirect ... is better ... than a page move and merge of history, as that confuses matters worse than a redirect. I was merely describing how a page move could be accomplished, not actually supporting it. - Huttite 05:02, 2 February 2009 (EST)
Yes, I realize that. I'm sorry for essentially repeating what you already said, I just did it to make things clearer for myself and expressing why I personally wouldn't support the page history merge proposed by JYolkowski. :) PerryPlanetTalk 20:48, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:33, 1 February 2009 (EST)
I lean toward keep. Nearly all travel topics are unnecessary, but having a few extras does no harm and this one has some useful info. Moving the info to San Diego and deleting this would also make sense. It seems to me there's enough fairly specific info here to justify a separate article and to be problematic if merged, too much for the main article, but I have no strong objection to deletion.
The info has already been moved to the San Diego district articles. PerryPlanetTalk 14:28, 11 February 2009 (EST)
I do object fairly vigorously to the idea of a redirect here. I see absolutely no point to that. Either keep it or delete it. Pashley 09:16, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Delete Well, while I have no strong feeling on the matter, it seems Pashley does, so I'd say we burn the thing alive, and sink the ashes to bottom of the Mariana trench.
Delete, without redirect. Gorilla Jones 17:22, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Yet another travel article about San Diego that I think simply duplicates things that should be in the district articles. I submit that it might ought to share the same fate as the other two San Diego topics vfd'd last month.
Keep. It's amazing how many of these there are. But unlike "Antique Shopping in San Diego" or "Disabled Travel in San Diego", I think this one is actually useful. It's got good info, it's a subject visitors to San Diego (as compared to say, Chicago) would be interested in, and it's rather convenient to have this info in one place rather than spread across multiple districts. However, I do recommend changing the name of the article to something more general, like "Outdoor recreation in San Diego", because 1) "getting active" sounds kind of tacky for a Wikitravel article, and 2) if it was "outdoor recreation", I could transfer the info in Boating in San Diego over to this one and then redirect it. That'd make things a little neater. PerryPlanetTalk 14:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Delete - another slippery slope. Could apply to any huge city, to cut across the district articles. Getting active in London, Antique shopping in London, Markets browsing across London, Walks across London, Museums in London, Theatres in London. Pointers to this information, where to keep active, should be in the main San Diego article, under Do. Details in the districts. District articles don't work well, but if we cut across them with travel topics articles describing things to Do across the areas, we risk sucking them dry. People supporting keep should give a good reason why this can't go in the San Diego article. If we keep this article, we should start to standardise names for these cross district theme articles. --Inas 17:53, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Merge and redirect. This one has good content that shouldn't be lost. But in general, if the content of a travel topic can be reworked into the format of our destination guides, it should be. Most of the content in the article can and should be moved to the "Do" sections of San Diego district articles, and a section on "Getting active" or something of that sort should be added to the main article, with links to the relevant district article "Do" sections. I recommend the redirect for SEO and in case the user who added this content wonders where it went. --PeterTalk 18:52, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Inas, you make several excellent points, but I think I already explained my reasoning for voting to keep. But I'll go ahead with a merge and redirect, that sounds fine. I'll work on the merging in the days to come.
On a side note, while we're discussing the usefulness of travel topics that can be applied to virtually any city (which I do agree should be gotten rid of if possible), where does this leave the "(insert city) with children" articles? Are they a special exception? (I'm not asking to launch into a detailed discussion about the "(insert city) with children" articles here on the VFD page, I just thought I'd bring it up here.) PerryPlanetTalk 11:47, 12 February 2009 (EST)
All worthy info has been merged. The article is ready for redirecting, when the time is right. PerryPlanetTalk 00:20, 17 February 2009 (EST)
The X-city with children articles are a bit different, I'd say. They're similar to this one in that they are providing tailored information for a specific subset of travelers, but the difference is in that it's easy to collect the information in this one and put it into "Do" sections. We have an activities section already. Whereas information about traveling with children would be scattered around all sections of the city/district articles; accordingly I think the w/ children series of articles, even if they duplicate content, are useful. --PeterTalk 15:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)
Again, I think if we want to capture this information, then a with children heading of the city article would make more sense than a separate article, with references to the appropriate district article when required. I think the listings, references, should include prices, references for children, but a summary of some good places to go can't hurt. Same as for special needs/wheelchair users, etc. Probably need to move this dicussion somewhere else now --Inas 17:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)
Peter writes "..in general, if the content of a travel topic can be reworked into the format of our destination guides, it should be.." and he's correct, but only "in general". At some point, there's enough specialised material that it should be moved to a separate article to avoid cluttering up the main article. I think this article is near that point. If rock climbing is a big deal in San Diego, then of course mention it in the main article and appropriate district articles. But if there's a lot to say, move it to a travel topic and link from the main article.
There are two main advantages. For those of us whose interest in such things is minimal, it avoids having a long list of 18 rock faces in the main article. For those who are into it, it lets you have a complete list in one article, without having to crawl through all the districts. It also gives opportunities for climber-ish discussion; classify by difficulty, whatever.
There's a balance to strike here. We do not want 777 travel topics about San Diego. Nor do we want lists of all the bike paths, all the chess clubs, ... in the destination articles.
An aside: "getting active" is appallingly ambiguous. My first thought on seeing the title was that someone had written an article on becoming politically active. Someone else, I suppose, might think sexually active. Pashley 03:08, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Delete I don't see any other user using that search time in the next millennia or so. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Hold We apparently really need to root out a policy on this, since alot of us are starting to second guess the current one. (see discussion for North Sea above). --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I second the motion of clarifying our bodies-of-water policy, but this one strikes me as a clear delete. We're not talking here about something with the size, and ambiguities, of the North Sea or a Great Lake. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:53, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Delete. I've been slowly working on another itinerary anyway and the Old Town isn't really large enough to justify its own itinerary - just a couple streets and most people "touring" the Old Town will only be interested in two squares and a couple of churches, which are covered in Warsaw/Śródmieście. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:35, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Without even addressing the fact that it isn't even capitalized properly... You would honestly encourage us to start allowing redirects for even non-travel topics titled in foreign languages? Would your vote be the same if the title was ティラデンテスの文化? I think this is a clear not a freakin' chance. Probably should have speedied it even. Texugo 07:45, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Hokkien phrasebook currently redirects to Minnan phrasebook, which explains that Minnan is called Hokkien in Malaysia. I'm not familiar with these languages enough to know whether they should have two separate articles. This one is currently almost empty.
There's just one language, so I'd say we only need one article, It is called "Minnan hua", South Fujian speech, in Mandarin. Its own word for itself is "Hokkien", and that word is used in Singapore & Malaysian English. Probably the article should be at Hokkien phrasebook using the English name.
I do not think the regional variants Malaysian hokkien or Taiwanese need separate articles, just redirects. For Taiwanese, though, some would disagree on political grounds. Pashley 06:36, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Short answer: Redirect to Minnan phrasebook. Long answer: this issue is ridiculously complicated (see ). I would suggest redirecting everything to Minnan phrasebook, writing it up for Xiamen/Amoy dialect of Quanzhou–Zhangzhou with Peh-oe-ji romanization, and then possibly spinning off Taiwanese and Teochew phrasebook etc if there's need. Jpatokal 23:35, 1 March 2009 (EST)