Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale watching in Brazil

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 Keep for Whale watching in Australia and Whale watching in New Zealand. The result was Delete for the remaining copypaste creations. (Note that all copypasting even -- even from within Wikipedia -- requires proper attribution per WP:CWW otherwise it is a copyright violation.) I suggest that any further discussion about Whale watching and the kept sub-articles should be done on a case-by-case basis. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whale watching in Brazil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a copy of Whale watching, and does not improve upon the content. I am also nominating the following articles:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Whale Watching article, all under their own sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the above articles have been simply copy pasted from Whale watching, so there is nothing new in the above 11 articles, so merging won't do anything. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. No valid deletion criterion has been presented, and Whale watching is certainly notable. Even whale watching in some specific countries is notable, as a Google Books search shows. Some of these articles should probably be merged back into Whale Watching, but a bulk AfD is not the place for such a merge discussion. -- 101.117.29.29 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable in their own right, see WP:GNG. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of them are, as a Google Books search shows. -- 101.117.29.29 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whale watching in New Zealand is certainly notable, and I have just expanded the article to make it more encyclopaedic. One of the senior NZ admins had already rated the article for Wikiproject New Zealand and has given it mid-importance, which further demonstrates the point. I have no opinion or knowledge about notability of other country articles. Schwede 66 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the material should be merged back into Whale watching, but the specific details of places would be more appropriate on WikiTravel. The article there on Whale watching needs work and will be deleted at the end of 2014 if not rescued, but that could be done with some of this material. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query Given that you have commented after my keep vote, where I maintain that Whale watching in New Zealand is notable, could you please clarify / confirm that you have actually looked at the NZ entry, and that your global delete vote is supposed to apply to the NZ entry as well? Schwede 66 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the NZ article and I have looked again at it. It still think it is WikiTravel material. A link to there could be on Whale watching. WMF has many projects. Not everything fits wikipedia. Some stuff should be on other projects. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the fact that only the NZ article has been improved, and all the other ten were and are simply copy pastes from Whale watching, only the the NZ article may be considered for keeping. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 07:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. The fact that the NZ article has been improved shows that the nom did not do a proper WP:BEFORE check and that this whole blanket nomination is flawed. -- 101.117.108.195 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with that comment. Either an article is notable, or it is not. That's independent to whether somebody improves an article. What an improvement may do is to show notability more clearly, but it doesn't establish notability in the first instance. Schwede 66 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AfD is not a place to cleanup and wikipedia is not a place to keep multiple copies of insignificant articles. The eleven articles were simply copy pastes from Whale watching created without discussion, rationale for keeping indipendent articles, or evidence of notability. A google search results in mostly links to tourism websites which is not an indication for notability and a google books search results in one on Australia and New Zealand only, which I don't know whether it makes the subject notable or reliaible. But an editor experienced in the field may come out with some other obscure, but notable sources, which is not possible for an editor like me who is not an expert in the field. Atleast, we can initiate a discussion, which may bring the articles in question to the attention of intrested editors. And this is the place to discuss whether or not an article is worth keeping. Now the above comment was made by me to stress the point that may be the NZ article should be looked into separately since the article has been significantly expanded since the initiation of the deletion disscussion and the others are copy pastes. By looking just at the google search results, it is not possible to judge a subject's notability. Cheers! -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 10:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whale watching in New Zealand with the article on Kaikoura. I don't think the article is sufficiently notable to stand alone, but it is appropriate within the Kaikoura article. NealeFamily (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Whale watching in New Zealand with the article on Kaikoura. Improved article, yes but says little about whale watching and more about Kaikoura.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NealeFamily and Egghead06, please note that I have further expanded the article, and broadened it in its geographic scope away from the rather dominant Kaikoura. Feel free to review the amended article and reconsider your vote if appropriate. Schwede 66 04:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have considerable doubt as to why Whale Watching is worthy of an article in Wiki. Essentially it is a tourist activity associated with particular localities of which there is a present only one in NZ, Kaikoura. I could see some merit of having a general article about human interaction with either the coastal maritime environment or whales in a more general sense. Are we heading down the lines of Bird watching in New Zealand, Possum shooting in New Zealand, etc? NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whale watching in New Zealand is certainly notable as is Whale watching in Australia which I have edited and added references to make it more encyclopaedic. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Whale watching in New Zealand and Whale watching in Australia as they are sourced and notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2014 (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.