Talk:White Mountain

vfd Discussion
Archived from the Project:Votes for deletion page:


 * Delete. Created by our serial creator, but also doesn't fit with Project:What is an article? unless someone discovers some fantastic route or something... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 19:22, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. It's a region in New Hampshire . Oddly enough, we're planning on stopping around there next week on our way to Boston. (WT-en) Maj 20:11, 26 July 2006 (EDT)


 * Keep. Hopefully, someone could convince Evan and Maj to pay special attention to the area, while they're travelling. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:13, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * The region is the White Mountains. If we're going to keep this then it should be a redirect . -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:16, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * There's also a "White Mountains" in Washington State. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:00, 26 July 2006 (EDT)


 * Confused. When I click on the White Mountain link I get a page that says it's in Alaska. There does appear to be such a place. What am I missing? *OldPine checks his capital I's* (WT-en) OldPine 20:43, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * After reading "OldPine's" (if that is in fact your real Wikivoyage user name) comments. I did some sleuthing and according to Getty's there are many White Mountain locations, including one in the Czech Republic .  I check my lower case l's :).  It seems the best solution is to disambig. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:55, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * The question isn't whether a place with the name of "White Mountain" exists (there are lots) but whether a destination that we're going to write an article about with that name exists. Mountains and mountain ranges are not subjects for articles (per Project:What is an article?) unless the article is about a region named after the mountain or range.  In this case Maj is proposing to redirect the article as a typo for the White Mountains region of New Hampshire - while I think that's being generous, creating a disambiguation page for this one would be going too far. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:17, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * What about the place in Arizona ? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:20, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * And the one in Alaska that is what the page now represents. It's listed as a city by Wikipedia. Geez, so there might not be anything written. Are we policing out stubs? (WT-en) OldPine 21:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Referring to the existing article about the tiny town on the Seward Peninsula, it's not that this article is a stub that's an issue, it's whether or not it has the potential to eventually become a useful guide, or whether the level of granularity should be at a more regional level. Normally I'd say the fact that someone felt a need to create the article would justify the level of granularity, but since it was created by a mischevious contributor who creates articles for inconspicuous dots on the map and fills them with useful content like "White Mountain a town", I think this one could safely go away.  If some day someone who really does want to create a useful guide to the area comes along then there would be nothing stopping them from re-creating it or else creating an article at a useful level of granularity, but for now I don't see a reason to keep a useless guide about a place none of us knows much about simply because Wikipedia says it has a population of around 200. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:35, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * OK, OK, I'm starting to remember that I don't really care. Sorry. (WT-en) OldPine 22:08, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * What Ryan said. It is not one of Wikivoyage's goals to create an article for every place on the planet, but for every destination on the planet.  An article with little potential to reach "usable" status (for a city that means at least one place of public accommodation, at least one restaurant, and at least one "attraction") and no potential for "guide" status (multiple options for each), is probably not a viable article unless we know that tourists are going there, regardless of the lack of facilities for them (e.g. a few of our Off the Beaten Path nominations).  To be useful to the traveler, what little information we could collect about that place should instead be incorporated into an article that covers a larger area that collectively could be a travel destination with enough to See, Do, Buy, Eat, and Drink to make it worth a visit.  Maybe that larger area is a county; more likely it's a region with a locally-understood name (e.g. Leelanau Peninsula).  See Project:Geographical hierarchy for some "policy" about this, but a key bit is this: "Where suburbs, satellite cities and villages deserve their own Wikivoyage entries is a matter of judgement -- probably depending on the amount of information about those places."  Not enough information to be had means it's not an article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Regarding all of the above "should it stay or should it go" conversation - whatever gets decided here may then should be applied to most of the work in my contributions lately. I worked through a stack of orphaned articles (created by you know who) to give them a parent.  The majority of those articles are very, very dot on the map locations - plenty in Alaska and India.  I have to agree that its pretty silly to have articles about dots... I'd say that most villages of +/- 200 people probably don't have a lot to offer tourists.  Sure - there are exceptions, but we're going to have an awful lot of "City in region" only articles... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Just to clarify my position on this issue I was not advocating for the Alaskan town to be kept. I was advocating to disambig White Mountain and White Mountains, because there appear to be several regions with similar names. I.e. checking this page shows that the White Mountains article page had been confused by someone who linked to the article from Arizona thinking White Mountains was referring to the region in Arizona.  Does anyone have a problem keeping the White Mountain page and making it a disambig?  This really isn't a debate about whether or not to keep an article on some god-forsaken town in Alaska. -- User:(WT-en) Sapphire
 * Keep. Additional edits have made this into a reasonably useful article for someone visiting that region of Alaska. HOWEVER, I don't think that every small dot on the map should be given an article UNLESS there is a minimum of useful information about the place in the article. If we're going to have this discussion every time an article for a place with a population of 50 is created that contains nothing more than "Foo a town" then we might as well simply mine the US Census Bureau's data and create outline articles for every dot that's out there (which I'm not advocating). -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. And everything Ryan said. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:01, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Re: the Census Bureau import notion. The CIA Factbook import created a bunch of articles that were pretty dubious (the rock-in-the-ocean sort), and as I was converting leftover Factbook articles a while back, I considered VFDing a bunch of them.  But because of their presence in the Factbook and other well-known "list of countries/territories" resources (and even labeled on globes), they were probably going to be recreated eventually by a well-meaning atlasmaker.  So I figured it was better to instead turn them into basic articles that made it clear how poor a destiantion they'd be for a curious would-be visitor.  Plus, since there's a certain class of traveler who seeks out these deserted and isolated places, these were arguably useful articles.  With them being so widely dispersed, I couldn't even hope to combine them into a regional article.  Furthermore, because they'd been in existence for a while, many of them had already been included in lists and linked to; it was going to be a pain to eradicate them.  The thing is, none of these arguments that convinced me to spare the rock-in-the-ocean articles apply to crossroads-in-the-field articles: They aren't infamous and inevitable to be recreated, they aren't sought out just for their lack of lodging and things to do, they can be combined with neighboring small communities and have articles written that cover them collectively, and they aren't (yet) entangled into our hierarchy.  With that said... a few of the rock-in-the-ocean articles did turn out to be actual destinations, with enough to support a real article.  And like I've said, if someone can show me in the article that a dot on the map has enough going on to be a destination, I'll be convinced.  The White Mountain article is now... borderline.  It might be worth keeping, but I suspect it would be a stronger article if it were about the area including White Mountain AK, with other towns included, which is how we should strive to handle the dots of the world: put enough of them together and you can draw a picture. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:41, 27 July 2006 (EDT) Update: I see now that it is on the Idiot Ride  I Did It, Rod Iditarod Trail.  So a small but measurable number of people (perhaps not all of them with dogs) do in fact visit it every year.  That's significant.  Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:29, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. I have added some content to this article, but I do think we should move the article to White Mountain (Alaska) and then create a disambig page on White Mountain. The reason is so people looking for White Mountains in New Hampshire have a parachute if they leave off the "s" on their search. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:04, 31 July 2006 (EDT)