Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route of Che

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 no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route of Che

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This does not seem to be an independently notable topic, rather it's what tour companies call a tour. No significant secondary coverage notability. There is some coverage of the "Che Guevara trail," but again, mostly in tourist brochures with no WP:SIGCOV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to have this article. Reywas92^Talk 13:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in Spanish looks like it has more sources, ex. this BBC article in Spanish. Also found this article in the Times of India, this mention in Al Jazeera, this article in a Cuban news outlet, etc. 2601:901:4300:1CF0:C938:885A:6D94:2D9E (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Spanish version of the article is 100 times better -- more informative, more interesting, better illustrated. If someone had the energy to translate it into English (I don't, not at this moment, anyway) it could be a useful article. At the moment it's fit only for the garbage bin. Nonetheless, I have a question for more experienced editors: suppose I find the time and energy to make a new article heavily based (>90%) on the Spanish article, how should I acknowledge that? Do copyright problems arise? Athel cb (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's covered in Help:Translation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Athel cb (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off deletion for the moment. On thinking about it I recognize that my main reason for not wanting to put this into English immediately was laziness. I hope to start on this tomorrow (it will make a change from endless revision of the entries in the List of biologists). If nothing useful emerges before the end of April feel free to delete the article. Athel cb (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I have now rewritten the English article on the basis of the Spanish version, so I'm changing my vote to Keep. I'm not entirely happy with it — too much emphasis on tourism and not enough on the events and the people involved. Nonetheless, I think it is now improved to the point where it doesn't need deletion, and I hope others agree. I expect I'll do more work on it. Athel cb (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally deleted the Afd tag, which Praxidicae has restored. Sorry, that wasn't intentional. Athel cb (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist: the !vote following the nomination provides no guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, and the article received a rewrite based upon the Spanish Wikipedia article (diff) during the course of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG - RS include the BBC for goodness' sake! Springnuts (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article never uses the word "route", the Times of India prefer is a single paragraph, one source is a link to a jpg that doesn't work. Another source is just a travel guide. The last source uses the word "route" the times, and never says theroute of Che. Not sure that really meets GNG. Not to mention there's no inline citations, so there's no knowing what's sourced and what's OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's coverage analysis above. The current tone and organisation of the article are more appropriate for Wikivoyage. Joofjoof (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2022 (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.