Talk:Montefeltro

VfD
''This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2013 but was kept. The deletion debate is Votes_for_deletion/September_2013. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.

A historical region which crosses not only several modern day provinces but also straddles two of Italy's top level hierarchical divisions and includes the Republic of San Marino. I do not see much evidence that this historical region is particularly relevant to modern travel, and except for San Marino, we do not have articles for any of its listed destinations. A merge/redirect may be possible if we can establish that it is important for this to be covered and agree on where to do so, but it should not be allowed to develop as a full region article outside our geographical hierarchy.
 * Delete or Merge (where?) and redirect/disambiguate - I'm not sure which is better. Texugo (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Emilia-Romagna, Marche and Tuscany. --Danapit (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, the Get in section appears to be written about the town of Novafeltria, so perhaps it should be moved to a new article about that town (now done). The list of red links probably doesn't need to be saved as they are practically all tiny villages with populations of 500-2000 people, and the only other thing worth merging is a one-line description of Pennabilli (pop. ~3000), which could be moved to the Emilia-Romagna article (also done). But then where would we redirect it afterward? Novafeltria, perhaps? Texugo (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, what I had in mind is moving the manucipalities list to Emilia-Romagna, Marche and Tuscany regions (or in case of Marche and Tuscany subregions), respectively, and deleting the rest, but you made it more elegantly with the get in section. And I agree, the list of red links probably doesn't even need to be saved - they are all rather small places and in case of need they can be easily added to the regions. Danapit (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh for crying out loud, just merge and redirect. It's a real place, it doesn't belong here.  LtPowers (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't especially appreciate the exasperation. Even among real places there are obviously cases that are not so clear-cut as to what should be done (remember Knowledge Corridor?), and I don't think this page is getting so unmanageably overrun with pointless nominations that it warrants a for-crying-out-loud. I half expected someone to argue for keeping this. Texugo (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Texugo, and furthermore, I see nothing in our policy that says that merge/redirect candidates have to be merged/redirected summarily without a VfD discussion, just because they can be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A discussion is fine; this just isn't the place for discussing something that won't be deleted. LtPowers (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, there is currently no better central place to discuss whether we do or do not want an article for something that is not a clear-cut case. The fact that the page may end up being redirected after the content is deleted or moved shouldn't automatically consign it to being a talk-page-only discussion that may languish about for months or years before being resolved. We have years of precedent of using this page for such cases, while your strict interpretation that "no real destination title should ever appear on this page for any reason" seems to be quite recent. Texugo (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * extraregion Traveler100 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that a consensus-backed thing now? (will be happy if it is) And if so, do we really want to use it for any and every historical region possible? Do we have any criteria? Texugo (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would appreciate some constructive input on the subject at Extraregion. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Earlier discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Geographical_hierarchy and also at several other places on that page; the problem of what to do about regions that do not fit nicely into the hierarchy has cropped up repeatedly. I'd say having a tag for them looks like a good idea. Pashley (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also a longer discussion at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?. Texugo (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My two cents (talk). I live in the area, and I can witness that normally travellers hit the whole region rather than a single center. There is also a proper website (not that up to date) for tourism in the area (http://www.montefeltroweb.it/, Italian only). It is more common to go and visit Montefeltro rather than go and visit the Rimini province: when you talk of Rimini, in general you refer to Riviera Adriatica, which has a very different kind of tourism. In my opinion such page could be useful as a summary for the area. It's one of those parts of Italy that are spread across multiple provinces (in this case multiple regions) but that have a common historical background. Consider also that the area was mostly in the Marche when five municipalities decided to detach and join Emilia Romagna in very recent times. I will try in my free time to populate the pages: those which remain too short could be just merged at the Montefeltro level. —The preceding comment was added by Danilo Panini (talk • contribs)


 * Keep, but merge much of the material to lower-level articles. I would tag it, but if people feel there is not a clear enough consensus yet for that (I think there is; see links above.) then tag it as a disambiguation page for now; we can always change the tag later. Pashley (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Danilo's argument is persuasive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)