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 Keep for Whale watching in Australia and Whale watching in New Zealand. The result was Delete for the remaining copypaste creations. (Note that all copypasting even -- even from within Wikipedia -- requires proper attribution per WP:CWW otherwise it is a copyright violation.) I suggest that any further discussion about Whale watching and the kept sub-articles should be done on a case-by-case basis. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whale watching in Brazil[edit]

Whale watching in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a copy of Whale watching, and does not improve upon the content. I am also nominating the following articles:

  1. Whale watching in the USA
  2. Whale watching in Hawaii
  3. Whale watching in South Africa
  4. Whale watching in Chile
  5. Whale watching in Argentina –– Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 05:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Whale watching in the Mediterranean
  7. Whale watching in New Zealand
  8. Whale watching in Australia -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 05:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Whale watching in Canada
  10. Whale watching in Norway -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 06:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the above articles have been simply copy pasted from Whale watching, so there is nothing new in the above 11 articles, so merging won't do anything. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are not notable in their own right, see WP:GNG. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of them are, as a Google Books search shows. -- 101.117.29.29 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Given that you have commented after my keep vote, where I maintain that Whale watching in New Zealand is notable, could you please clarify / confirm that you have actually looked at the NZ entry, and that your global delete vote is supposed to apply to the NZ entry as well? Schwede66 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did look at the NZ article and I have looked again at it. It still think it is WikiTravel material. A link to there could be on Whale watching. WMF has many projects. Not everything fits wikipedia. Some stuff should be on other projects. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with that comment. Either an article is notable, or it is not. That's independent to whether somebody improves an article. What an improvement may do is to show notability more clearly, but it doesn't establish notability in the first instance. Schwede66 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, AfD is not a place to cleanup and wikipedia is not a place to keep multiple copies of insignificant articles. The eleven articles were simply copy pastes from Whale watching created without discussion, rationale for keeping indipendent articles, or evidence of notability. A google search results in mostly links to tourism websites which is not an indication for notability and a google books search results in one on Australia and New Zealand only, which I don't know whether it makes the subject notable or reliaible. But an editor experienced in the field may come out with some other obscure, but notable sources, which is not possible for an editor like me who is not an expert in the field. Atleast, we can initiate a discussion, which may bring the articles in question to the attention of intrested editors. And this is the place to discuss whether or not an article is worth keeping. Now the above comment was made by me to stress the point that may be the NZ article should be looked into separately since the article has been significantly expanded since the initiation of the deletion disscussion and the others are copy pastes. By looking just at the google search results, it is not possible to judge a subject's notability. Cheers! -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 10:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NealeFamily and Egghead06, please note that I have further expanded the article, and broadened it in its geographic scope away from the rather dominant Kaikoura. Feel free to review the amended article and reconsider your vote if appropriate. Schwede66 04:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still have considerable doubt as to why Whale Watching is worthy of an article in Wiki. Essentially it is a tourist activity associated with particular localities of which there is a present only one in NZ, Kaikoura. I could see some merit of having a general article about human interaction with either the coastal maritime environment or whales in a more general sense. Are we heading down the lines of Bird watching in New Zealand, Possum shooting in New Zealand, etc? NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2014 (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.
More