Talk:Alpine pearls

Deletion discussion

Project:Votes for deletion/January 2009#Alpine pearls

Alpine pearls

I'm nominating this one for deletion just to see what happens. I don't think we generally have articles for tourism associations, do we? (WT-en) Texugo 07:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

• Yah, thats not right, Delete.  :) Keep smilin' (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
• Merge into Alps? It would seem a shame to lose this information about sustainable tourism in such a heavily visited region. (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
• I was going to say "keep", since I think it could become a viable article. Travel topic, perhaps? However, I Checked for copyvio and found the entire article is word-for-word from Wikipedia [1].
• So now I say trash existing text, redirect this to the [Alps] article, and add a sentence or two and a link to alpinepearls.com there. That lets us put links to Alpine pearls in the articles for towns that are involved in the program. If someone later undoes the redirect and writes a real article on these pearls, that's OK too. (WT-en) Pashley 06:10, 19 November 2008 (EST)
  • I speedied it, but immediately restored it. The text was written by a user with the same name on both sites; assuming it's the same person, it's not a copyright violation. I say just redirect it. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:39, 19 November 2008 (EST)
• Delete. Texugo asked the right question, and there's no compelling affirmative answer. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
  • I'm starting to reconsider my position here. There is precedent for articles listing destinations bound by some notable, "official" distinction, e.g. UNESCO World Heritage List and UNESCO Creative Cities. Is UNESCO less a "tourism association" than the people behind this, just because it's associated with the United Nations? I now incline to keep, but let's discuss once more, then put it to bed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:52, 30 December 2008 (EST)
• That's the right question, but it contains the word "generally" and this may be an exception. It is travel-related & Tarr3n makes a good point as well. It is not a destination or region in our usual senses, but the info seems worth having. I'm not sure if it should be a travel topic, a redirect to a short section in Alps, or what, but I do not think it's an outright delete. (WT-en) Pashley 23:13, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Consensus is to keep the information found here. A merge can be discussed on the talk page. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:17, 26 January 2009 (EST)

VFD discussion

This has to be one of the weirdest articles I've ever seen on WV. An article for some tourist cooperation organization between different destinations or something. Has anyone heard about this organization before, because I sure haven't, or possibly used the organization's services in some way? I cannot really see how the stuff that's in the article right now could benefit the voyager? I'd say let's delete it (of course the nice banner should definitely be reused somewhere else).

As a side note, in the article's old VFD discussion from 2008 it's mentioned that it's a verbatim copy of w:Alpine pearls, also the tag on the top of the WP article points out that it's written like an ad, which is largely true. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Even if it were possible to expand this topic to article length, which I doubt, the fact remains that this is way outside the site's scope. Not to mention the copyvio issues and the fact that no meaningful edits have been made to it since 2008. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - for the reasons outlined above. No worthy context and possible copvyo issues. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - An Italian version of this article was created last week, so I think that it might be good to wait a couple of weeks to see if it develops. Otherwise I would agree that it should be deleted. AlasdairW (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm having trouble seeing how this could be turned into a really travel-related article. This seems like the kind of remark that could be made in passing in a single sentence in each relevant article: "Town X, as a member of Alpine Pearls (include link), is well set up for visitors without a car." Then, the town's public transportation options can be detailed as normal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Leaning toward Delete: As written, the article has no useful info for the traveller, except possibly a list of alpine destinations where you don't need a car to get around. I don't understand German well, but their website seems to be a promotional link farm, and the English version gives a 404 error. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, but reduce it to something like a disambiguation page; just a one-sentence intro, links to the towns involved, and the WP link for anyone who wants more. A rationale for keeping this sort of article is at Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Index_articles. Pashley (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Merge whatever might be useful into Alps and then redirect. As noted in the nomination this article went through a VFD previously (see Talk:Alpine pearls) and that was the outcome at the time. The copyvio concerns were raised in that discussion, but apparently it was the same user who created it here and on Wikipedia. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Merge into Alps and redirect. -- DerFussi 20:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I think this should be deleted, there doesn't seem to be any information which couldn't go into or is already in Alps Drat70 (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Merged some of text into Alps. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)