From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

VFD discussion[edit]


According to our Wikitravel:What is an article? policy, this shouldn't be an article as you cannot sleep there. According to Wikipedia [1] there are cabins there for the weather team, but it is otherwise uninhabited and Svalbard#Cities states that it is uninhabited... Do we need to tighten up our guidelines or do we delete this? I'm not sure it's a great idea to delete this - if we do, we have to start deleting all wilderness articles... -- Tim 19:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep -- just read a bit further down to the exceptions section... we should keep this. -- Tim 19:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Delete -- I don't see how the exceptions section justifies this? It's uninhabited (except for the weather station), has no tourist facilities or sights of interest, and requires special permits and a custom Arctic expedition to get to. Neither do the other similar islands in the archipelago: in the unlikely event that they start to spill out of the main Svalbard article, they should be lumped into Outer Islands (Svalbard) or some such. Jpatokal 12:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Delete. Not every splotch of land in the ocean is a destination. Jani's solution seems correct. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Redirect to Svalbard. We have (very brief) articles for some other rocks in the ocean with no public accommodations, but that's only because they're on the standard list of countries and territories (so people might go looking for articles about them), and they have no nearby landmasses (so they can't be easily included and redirected to anything). - Todd VerBeek 08:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Redirect to Svalbard. An article that will never exceed outline status probably isn't worth keeping around, but at the same time a redirect keeps someone from recreating it in the future. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, you guys talked me into it. I've done the redirect and will close the books on this one. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)