Talk:One week in Santo Domingo for a student

Necessary?
What is there about this article that makes it "for a student"? Why not just "One week in Santo Domingo"? And anyway, this article is not presenting an itinerary; it merely duplicates information from the main Santo Domingo article. (WT-en) Texugo 19:12, 8 March 2010 (EST)
 * Anyone?(WT-en) Texugo 03:32, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

VFD Discussion
This supposed itinerary is neither an itinerary nor does it have anything specifically for students. It merely duplicates some listings from the main Santo Domingo article and even has some things that aren't in the main article but should be. I posted a note to that effect on the talk page a few weeks ago but no one replied, so I'm putting it here.
 * Merge and delete - (WT-en) Texugo 11:08, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Merge and delete for the same reasons given above. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
 * "Merge and delete" shouldn't be an option; Merge and redirect is the only proper method. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:25, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Why on earth redirect that article title?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:50, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
 * The article history must be maintained for attribution purposes; otherwise it's a copyright violation to simply copy someone else's text into a different article. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:45, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
 * There is some sense in that, but if I created an article with a couple of salvageable listings and called it 46 and half hours in February in Santo Domingo when you don't have a girlfriend and you only have 60 dollars, I would hope that it gets merged and deleted; a simple attribution note on the talk page would be sufficient. In either case, you can't get around putting an attribution note on the talk page, which sounds like yet another argument for a talk page attribution section. (WT-en) Texugo 22:18, 1 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Merge and Delete.   I don't agree with (WT-en) LtPowers that we need to keep the redirect for attribution in this case.  There are only a couple of contributors to the text, and it makes more sense to just reference them in merge edit, then it does to keep a redirect.  The attribution quality is better - but possibly still not sufficient. It is an argument for some sort of policy on how we attribute - but not an argument for putting it on the talk page (which is for meta-discussion, not for attribution). --(WT-en) inas 23:12, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:19, 25 May 2010 (EDT)