Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Tourism Rankings

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 delete. W.marsh 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Tourism Rankings

World Tourism Rankings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is essentially a mirror of the World Tourism Rankings published by the World Tourism Organisation. It is, of course, not authoritative, as Wikipedia is not the publisher. The article contains no analysis of the rankings or how they are compiled, only the information, so I believe this article fails Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. I would suggest that it be deleted, a redirect placed pointing to World Tourism Organisation, and we then wait to see if that article ever contains an encyclopaedic coverage of the rankings sufficient to split out again. And we should of course link to the rankings in the main article. Cruftbane 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I moved this text from the nomination, user 80.176.82.42 states: t is possible that by publishing information which is compiled and published by this organisation, that we may be violating copyright. That would apply if the means of ranking is novel or requires collection and analysis from multiple sources. Since the article does not describe the ranking mechanism it is not easy to tell if that is the case. Tiptoety 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that this is linked in {{World Tourism}}, accounting for its high number of inbound links. It makes about as much sense there as having the Fortune or Inc. 500 lists in a template called "Business", i.e., smacking of promotion. If appropriate using the actual rankings as a source is fine, but as with other copyrighted lists there is no purpose to our reproducing the material here. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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.