Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Venezuela

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. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Venezuela

[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)

An enormous article with only a handful of references, this is basically a tourism ad rather than an encyclopedia article. I came here because someone had added that Caracas was a murder capital - I wanted to revert that, but once I saw that almost the whole article is uncited, I found myself asking why should one opinion go while others stay? From the head tag, it appears that this has been the state of the article since its beginning, so I think we should get rid of it. ubiquity (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles about tourism in all parts of the world – see Category:Tourism by country. It is likely that many of these articles are less than good because 99% of our articles are thus. But it's our explicit policy that "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Improvement is done by ordinary editing, not by deletion. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. I've done some cleanup, and its clear that the article can be salvaged, even if now its not in the best of shape. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with above. The article may lack sources and solid structure, but the readers will still find it useful. Rather than nominating it for deletion a cleanup is always the better solution. — Kstone999 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some clean-up as well but forgot to comment here. Needs more work and sourcing but the topic is worthy of an article. MB 04:03, 27 September 2019 (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.