Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overtourism: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Sagecandor (talk | contribs) commented |
Sagecandor (talk | contribs) removed comment from self |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::I know and I'm being of little help. I do see enough Gnews results that at the very least I think Overtourism might be a valid redirect... to something. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
:::I know and I'm being of little help. I do see enough Gnews results that at the very least I think Overtourism might be a valid redirect... to something. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::No, you are always of help. I'd be fine with a redirect target to something. Maintaining the history here I don't think serves much of a purpose, but finding a redirect target after deletion works from my end. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
::::No, you are always of help. I'd be fine with a redirect target to something. Maintaining the history here I don't think serves much of a purpose, but finding a redirect target after deletion works from my end. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Legitimate phenomenon of significant study in multiple different independent and reliable secondary sources as can easily be seen at {{Find sources AFD|Overtourism}}. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 17:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:17, 21 July 2017
- Overtourism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay-like publication and is essentially original research. Even if that could be fixed, there is no evidence that it is more than a non-notable neologism. I removed significant copyrighted text before nominating, and suspect that much of the remaining text is also copied from elsewhere, but cannot find a source. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose a possible merge target could be Impacts of tourism. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- And/or merge useful content into Sustainable tourism? Because a good part of the article is given over to addressing "overtourism" with sustainable practices. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Shawn in Montreal, my concern there is twofold: we don't know which content is OR and what is reliably sourced because there are no citations in the article. The other concern is that I highly suspect that the content is copied from somewhere based on the previous version of the article. Since I can't find an additional parent source, I'm not comfortable saying that with certainty, but it gives me pause on the merging. An option could be to delete and redirect and encourage the creator to expand the content using reliable sources in their own words. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I know and I'm being of little help. I do see enough Gnews results that at the very least I think Overtourism might be a valid redirect... to something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, you are always of help. I'd be fine with a redirect target to something. Maintaining the history here I don't think serves much of a purpose, but finding a redirect target after deletion works from my end. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I know and I'm being of little help. I do see enough Gnews results that at the very least I think Overtourism might be a valid redirect... to something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)