Talk:Ballena Marine National Park

Deletion discussion
Project:Votes for deletion/January 2009:

Ballena Marine National Park
New article, entire content apparently copied from another site. I'm not certain if the article itself should be deleted or not. (WT-en) Pashley 08:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * I'd say redirect it to South Costa Rica or Uvita for the time being. Even if you can sleep there, which isn't clear, it doesn't look huge enough to need its own article.  From the description, it sounds more like a day-attraction than a multi-day destination.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:09, 13 November 2008 (EST)


 * why does the other park have their info... this is the first Marine Park, one of the few places in the world where you can see the whales from the south and northern hemisphere... the info that i put there was my own, taken from one of my websites... if you take this out, than take out all th eother parks in the worls... you cannot sleep in any of the costa rican parks... but it is a travel destination...

so please put it back...

the rules are not clear... they say not to add links in the main page of costa rica... but they are alot... i add one and they take it down.... helloooooooooooooooooo


 * Learn how to not sound so whiny and how to use a signature (use for tildes, or see at the bottom SIGN YOUR NAME).  Also if you were a little more lenient, you'd see there are real reasons for this.  I don't get why you said "then take out all the other parks", does that mean you've worked extensively on every single park that has a travel guide on this website?  I find that very untrue!  You still need to learn some, and HELLO to you too;)!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 18:29, 14 November 2008 (EST).


 * There are two separate problems here. One is the text from another site. See my comments at User talk:(WT-en) Geinier for that.


 * The other question is whether this park gets its own article. As I said above, I don't know the answer on that. However, in general, parks don't get separate articles; see policy at Project:What_is_an_article?. Nobody's saying there should not be text for parks, just that usually it should be in a region or town article rather than a separate article on the park. Huge parks like Angkor Wat or Disneyland are exceptions.


 * In nearby Mexico we have an article on the Mayan_Riviera. At least two park articles for parks in that area were created, Xel-Ha and Xcaret, but because both are "attractions" rather than "destinations" in the Wikivoyage sense, both were changed to redirects to Mayan_Riviera, and some text moved there. Archived "vote for deletion" discussions of those are at Project:Votes_for_deletion/November_2007 and Project:Votes_for_deletion/October_2008.


 * My guess would be something like that is needed here, but I do not know the area, so I cannot say what. (WT-en) Pashley 08:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)


 * Keep. Based on this resource, it looks like one can "sleep" there in a tent, if nothing else, and we've accepted other national parks in other countries with comparably rustic accommodations.  The bogus text isn't grounds for deletion; normal policy is to clean that up, rather than delete the article.  I'm going to Costa Rica in a few weeks and would use this article if it was in shape by then. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:38, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Delete as apparent copyvio. I've deleted it and recreated the article as a redirect to Uvita. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:25, 26 January 2009 (EST)