Hi. I apologize for removing the link somewhat abrubtly. I actually assumed it was added along with the advertising link for "Punta Cana" real estate, and removed it because advertising links are inappropriate on Wikipedia. However, after reviewing the content, it doesn't seem like it was necessarily advertising, although the original user who placed it may have had the intention of driving traffic to the site. Even if it isn't advertising, links still need to adhere to the guidelines located at Wikipedia:External links and the policy for What Wikipedia is not. I personally think that as a travel guide, and other reasons, the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course, implementing these guidelines is a subjective task, and your opinion may differ from mine. Since you have more knowledge in the matter, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion after reading the related guidelines. Thanks! -- Renesis ( talk) 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and for refering me to the guidelines. I read the guidelines and went to the link in question and read a good deal of the site and reread the guidelines again. I kept the following points from the guidelines in mind while reading through the site:
* Is it accessible to the reader? * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? *Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. *Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The site's content with regard to Dominican history, culture, politics, cuisine, location, climate and resorts fits the Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible external link.
Hi. I apologize for removing the link somewhat abrubtly. I actually assumed it was added along with the advertising link for "Punta Cana" real estate, and removed it because advertising links are inappropriate on Wikipedia. However, after reviewing the content, it doesn't seem like it was necessarily advertising, although the original user who placed it may have had the intention of driving traffic to the site. Even if it isn't advertising, links still need to adhere to the guidelines located at Wikipedia:External links and the policy for What Wikipedia is not. I personally think that as a travel guide, and other reasons, the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course, implementing these guidelines is a subjective task, and your opinion may differ from mine. Since you have more knowledge in the matter, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion after reading the related guidelines. Thanks! -- Renesis ( talk) 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and for refering me to the guidelines. I read the guidelines and went to the link in question and read a good deal of the site and reread the guidelines again. I kept the following points from the guidelines in mind while reading through the site:
* Is it accessible to the reader? * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? *Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. *Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The site's content with regard to Dominican history, culture, politics, cuisine, location, climate and resorts fits the Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible external link.