Talk:Mount Banahaw

Mount Banahaw
This is a listing, not an article. I have ensured that there are listings for the mountain in the towns around it, with a wikidata link, and a description using the paragraph from the article. This article is now redundant. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 20:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I would vote to redirect if there were an obvious single city (or even region) to redirect to, but the mountain appears to straddle the boundary of several regions. Therefore, when people search the name, they'll be better off getting a list of articles that mention the mountain, rather than being sent to a particular page. Plus, if Wikipedia is up-to-date, the mountain has been closed to hikers since 2004 and is only accessible to pilgrims from the local area.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to confirm that it is still closed. This blogger, who is Filipino, hiked it in 2019 and said that one trail was open. Ground Zero (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GZ says they added a listing description using the article. That means the article cannot be deleted, unless the listing text is also (if the description is above the threshold for copyright). Anyway, isn't this a possible search term, which should be redirected to the most relevant town? –LPfi (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then move it to my userspace without a redirect if the article history is needed for attribution. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How would anybody find it in your user space? By a comment on the talk page, yes, but that is unnecessary clutter. And we should never assume user space is a safe place for anything, user pages can be deleted by author request or for whatever reasons, and admins will not check for attribution concerns when deleting them. And why do we need to delete the page in the first place? –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason to delete is TT's comment on where to redirect to. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect. We can redirect to the mountain listing in one suitable article and have the listing link other possible entry points. Perhaps we should redirect to Quezon (province), which says "Quezon Province's main draw is Mount Banahaw". If that's true, there is no problem to have a subsection in See describing the mountain and listing destinations that give a good view or can work as entry points (if hiking the mountain is allowed). –LPfi (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per TT’s comment about the mountain’s location. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect – I think LPfi's suggestion of redirecting to a region article seems sensible enough. Or we could redirect somewhere else, but I think it's best to pick which article we want use to give an overview of how to visit the mountain, and redirect this page there, rather than deleting the page so readers aren't sure which search result to look at for information about visiting the mountain. On the other hand, if it's true that the mountain is no longer visitable then it would make sense to delete (and remove the listings for the mountain in nearby city articles). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The listings in nearby city articles are See listings not Do/Hike listings. I do not think that there is any prohibition on looking at the mountain. We don't have any article that explains how to visit the mountain. I don't have a problem redirecting it to the region article. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Result: redirected to region. Ground Zero (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)