Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overtourism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Impacts of tourism. Definitively no support for keeping the article in its current state but no consensus between redirect or deletion or even keeping or deleting the history; thus going for redirect but a redeletion of the previous versions is in order if copyvio concerns materialize Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overtourism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay-like publication and is essentially original research. Even if that could be fixed, there is no evidence that it is more than a non-notable neologism. I removed significant copyrighted text before nominating, and suspect that much of the remaining text is also copied from elsewhere, but cannot find a source. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a possible merge target could be Impacts of tourism. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And/or merge useful content into Sustainable tourism? Because a good part of the article is given over to addressing "overtourism" with sustainable practices. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn in Montreal, my concern there is twofold: we don't know which content is OR and what is reliably sourced because there are no citations in the article. The other concern is that I highly suspect that the content is copied from somewhere based on the previous version of the article. Since I can't find an additional parent source, I'm not comfortable saying that with certainty, but it gives me pause on the merging. An option could be to delete and redirect and encourage the creator to expand the content using reliable sources in their own words. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know and I'm being of little help. I do see enough Gnews results that at the very least I think Overtourism might be a valid redirect... to something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are always of help. I'd be fine with a redirect target to something. Maintaining the history here I don't think serves much of a purpose, but finding a redirect target after deletion works from my end. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Neologism and OR. E Eng 20:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/Delete and Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as per TonyBallioni. I agree preserving the history serves no purpose but it is a valid search term so a redirect to Impacts of tourism following deletion is reasonable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a pure essay with no encyclopedic value. I don't think the term is widely-used enough to justify a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Tourism is a broad industry with almost 100 of tourism classification. Over Tourism could be identified as Mass Tourism, so I suggest it should be added to a page of Tourism as a sub section. Although, we cannot deny the fact that tourism indusrty is focussing on it already. Chrisswill (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is denying that it could serve as a useful redirect. The question is if the history should be preserved. With the potential for copyvios and the pure lack of citations, I think deleting the history before makes a lot of sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.