Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newfoundland Trail

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge/Redirect there seems to be a broad consensus that merger is appropriate in these type of cases, and as nominator I agree. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland Trail

No evidence of notability, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, not notable and Wikipedia isn't a travel guide Pstanton 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Merge with larger park. Don't delete. There is a lot of useful information here. If needs be userfy. travb (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm getting rather fed up with people who think that all one needs to do to create a Wikipedia article is paste in some material from another Web site. Yes, the source of this article is licensed under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License", which may well be compatible with our license (I have no idea, really), but which requires attribution to the author or licensor, which I'm not seeing in this article. Can't people at least make an effort to write about something they care about and can reference to reliable sources rather than just copying text from elsewhere? Deor (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The grand majority of articles which are deleted are by new editors, who get a slap in the face and a "your not welcome here" by delete editors. In general, established editors don't get their articles deleted because they know how to make an article look good, with the appropriate sections, references, templates, and categories.

Maybe instead of whining about how editors don't know how to create articles, you can become an Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User and help those users build a better article.

As User:MichaelQSchmidt wrote: "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." travb (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'm the original author of the material in this article and could change the above license to something more compatible if that would help. It was written for Pemmican.org in order to kick off a web presence for the trail. There seems to be very little information available online about any of the frequently used trails in this province (with the exception of the Mantario Trail). Even if this information were merged with say the Spruce Woods Provincial Park article, it could prove very useful to hikers and bikers in the province during the summer. --Zachdegner (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and set redirect with respects to the author. I was a little bold... and after looking at the Newfoundland Trail article, it made sense to include the information in the article on Spruce Woods Provincial Park... so I did so. The information is not lost to Wiki and the author's work improves the larger article. And with respects to the author, that is pretty much where folks might expect to find information about a trail in the park... the park article itself. So the trail article can go... with our thanks to Zachdegner... as I have already effectively merged it to where is might be expected. No wet feet for me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the information was merged, deletion is not the appropriate option. So I have redirected, to complete the merge. This is maybe a bit premature, but as the article was proposed for speedy deletion and had already been merged, I concluded bold action was reasonable. The redirect preserves the history, so if some part should have been merged but wasn't, or someone expands the trail section in the park article and it is determined to be notable and to warrant an independent article (which seems unlikely) it can be split back out. I think this is a good outcome, and I thank the contributor who created this article. Notable trail information that meets guidelines (ie isn't travel guidesque) is certainly useful and makes the encyclopedia better. I hope you'll continue to contribute and I'm sure you'll get a hang of the rules and procedures as you go. We all had to figure out Wikipedia works and it takes a long time. I still have no idea how it all works, and soemtimes I'm not sure it does. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NE2 deleted the merge as a copyvio. I have addressed that problem and re-inserted the information. If he kicks it out again, I do not know what to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear as to whether these are copyvios or not. The source [1] is licensed under [2]. Is that compatible with GFDL or not? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no longer a concern. When the author of the original material at Pemmican.org (see above) copied his original material into Wiki, he owned the rights and could do so... with OTRS confirmation of his identity. When I originally moved that same information to the park article, I did not have those permisssions so they were removed. However, after studying the complete text of article, I could then include certain facts without "copying" them and show the article as the source... as is done for everything in Wiki. We're cool now as there is no hint of copyvio. And yes, the creative commons license is compatible with GDFL, but I did not have to go that route, as I did not "copy" the text... only used it to souce the added informations. Better safe than sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for clarifying that for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.