You certainly cannot sleep there. Indeed it is illegal to even visit there. Not really appropriate for a travel guide. A short para at Andaman Islands maybe?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:45, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

It's a real place. Needs to at least be a redirect, but I don't see a problem with a brief article that says (essentially) "This is not a place you can visit." (WT-en) LtPowers 09:02, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

A redirect I think. It does not pass the test of can you sleep there? and additionally it is illegal to visit there. What possible use could this article be to a traveller?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:54, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

• Redirect (sadly since it sounds like a very cool place to be in) to Andaman and Nicobar. Perhaps we can have a short, generic mention at Andaman and Nicobar#Stay safe, for those who happen to be nearby somehow, to avoid contact (landing or otherwise) at all costs due to both it being outlawed by the de jure government and also it is extremely dangerous because of the hostility of locals towards outlanders. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:06, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Whoops, the "stay safe" issue has already been addressed in the article. I thought I had checked that, but it seems I was looking at the "stay healthy" section of the same article instead. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:10, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

• Redirect. There are tour companies of questionable morality that specialize in "contacting" uncontacted peoples. But even they won't get past the hailstorms of spears and arrows with which the Sentinelese greet Indian helicopters. Can't sleep here. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:58, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

• KeepAbstain. The can't sleep there rule isn't meant to exclude places you can't visit, but rather discount articles on the type of places that you couldn't normally sleep. I fully support (WT-en) LtPowers idea of just a short article saying it is not a place you can visit. --(WT-en) inas 20:11, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Why put that information about this island into an empty article instead of consolidating it where it is currently (at Andoman & Nicobar)? Should we create stubs for each tiny island in the chain? This seems poor organization. We rule out places at which you cannot sleep in order to prevent the proliferation of useless articles that disperse content. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:22, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Even leaving aside "can't sleep there", common sense surely says that a travel guide should not have articles about places which are impossible to visit? We already specifically exclude uninhabited islands and I can see no value at all in a stubby article about a place nobody can visit.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:27, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

@(WT-en) Burmesedays We have uninhabited islands, some even reach the top level of the Australia, for example Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands, I don't think they are specifically excluded by any policy I am aware of, and I'm sure I could dig up a few other examples too. Wake Island, of course, is our famous example where people have been proud to document an island you can't go to. Sometimes, in a travel guide, information on where and why you can't go is important too, and there seems agreement on that. The only question is whether that info can go elsewhere with a redirect, or whether it justifies its own article.

@(WT-en) Peter I could frame the same question in the reverse. Why clutter a proper travel article with information on an island no-one will likely consider visiting or getting information on. If someone is thinking of visiting, they can search for the island and get the (brief) information they need. There is little value in the article, I agree, but there is very little overhead in keeping these articles - probably less than putting the information elsewhere and redirecting to it. --(WT-en) inas 22:47, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

I really don't understand what the argument is for treating this accommodation-less island different from any other. Should we have articles for every island in the Andaman and Nicobar chains? Wake Island is a place one can visit, and has basic travel amenities that we do require for a travel article. Heard & McDonald is a reasonable exception, I would say, since they are so far from anything else and could not be covered usefully in the Australia article. Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article—subdividing the Andaman & Nicobar article into 600 blank island articles sounds less fun. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:17, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

To clarify: Wikivoyage policy specifically states that uninhabited islands should not have their own articles. Read Project:What is an article?. That policy seems to be ignored in a handful of cases, but remains none the less. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:53, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Good spotting there - right at the bottom of the list. Although this island isn't really uninhabited - though. It's not a rock in the ocean.

Given that others seem to have a vision for the area which makes sense, and I'm not volunteering to piece together the region, I'm happy to concede the point. --(WT-en) inas 02:28, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Yep. The uninhabited island point was a side issue, but I wanted to make that clear for potential future cases. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:36, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

• Redirect - Lethally unvisitable. (WT-en) Texugo 23:13, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

I'd like to own up... I was the one who wrote the article. North Sentinel Island is a very intriguing place, and I wanted to make other travellers aware of it, for its own sake as well as for the safety of the traveller. However, I did not know that there was already a mention of it on the Andaman Islands page. I've read your objections, and agree that having its own page is unnecessary. I do, however, agree with Peter when he says, "Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article". But a redirect is necessary. --User:(WT-en) Squishysquashy ^Talk 13:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm okay with a redirect as long as the target article clearly mentions the island and that it's not visitable. But I do want to explicitly agree with Inas about the "can you sleep there" rule -- my reading of it is that it was meant only to allow us to (help) distinguish between an attraction and a destination, and any other use of the rule is questionable. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Regardless of anyone's reading of the article, we have been using the "can you sleep there" rule on this page since before my time to rule out articles on tiny towns, uninhabited islands, and the like (which could be seen as destinations and not just attractions). --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

According to (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill the intended interpretation of this was agreed on IRC back in 2007. This discussion came up over Dorothy. Regardless, whichever way you may choose to look at it, we have definitely moved on from the simplistic interpretation that would have us delete a destination for merely lacking a hotel or campsite. --(WT-en) inas 19:06, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

(Actually he said "IIRC" not "on IRC". =) (WT-en) LtPowers 19:24, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I try to avoid wearing my glasses - its a vanity thing. --(WT-en) inas 19:55, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Andaman and Nicobar. Although the outcome was clearly "redirect", comments about making a mention in the target article lead me to believe that this is actually a "merge & redirect", hence the action taken. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 12 June 2010 (EDT)