Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for Deletion

This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy.

If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article.

The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page.

Nominating[edit]

  1. For the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing it will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing, right at the very top, before everything else.
  2. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article, file or template per entry.
  3. If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons.

The basic format for a deletion nomination is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Commenting[edit]

All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.

Archiving[edit]

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected.

See also:

Icon delete talk.svg

June 2014[edit]

Massive copyright infringement[edit]

I'm going to speedy delete all the articles created by User:Dronych. Dronych has been massively copy-pasting copyright text from external sources into our articles since last few months. --Saqib (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Aren't these real towns and cities and national parks? In that case we should remove or paraphrase the content that is there but it would absolutely not make any sense to send the articles to the landfill. If we really need to get rid of them, well, let's turn them into redirects to the region. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Ps. this was not a "minor edit", I just accidentally checked the box. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The infringing text will remain in the page history so I'm going to delete all of the articles and re-create them. --Saqib (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I guess that makes sense. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested to re-create them? Furthermore, this user has moved chunk of text from many articles to these deleted articles. I think I should revert his edits as well. What do you think? --Saqib (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll start recreating them. And yes, copypasted content should be deleted from the articles, but I don't think it's a good idea to delete and recreate the articles that already existed before his edits because that would remove the earlier edit history as well. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not deleting the articles not created by this user. So far, I've reverted some copyrighted text the user added to articles after March 2014. Its surprising no one noticed this user is doing copyvio on massive scale since last year. --Saqib (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably because it is not a frequently traveled part of the world, therefore there can be weeks or months before anyone else even looks at the particular article again. Try to do the same in a Paris or New York City article... ϒpsilon (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a good excuse YPSI. Other than Balkans, the user has also added mass copyrighted text to some Russian, Turkish as well Nepalese articles as well. --Saqib (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess we need to keep an eye on edits by experienced editors too just like with edits from IPs. I really hate saying that. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, I don't know the scope of desicions you can make as administrator. But what I see here is that you act too impulsively and base your desicions only on your point of view. As now you marked articles to be speed-deleted and have already reverted part of my commits. Isn't it supposed to be a collective work and desicion-making? My proposal is that you give me a chance to fix it: so I keep information that is my personal writings and I delete or put in my own words copyrighted content. As otherwise what are you doing - is just solving a problem with copyrighted content but at the same time wasting an opportunity to improve exising content. As yes, deletion is very effective way to solve copyvio issues, but there are better ones I thinkDronych (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's great that you have an interest in improving our articles about Eastern Europe, Dronych and I do hope that this continues. Saqib is just trying to protect our guides from copyright infringement which we do take very seriously. However, your proposal does seem reasonable = are you able to give us a timescale for how long it would take for you to remove any infringements if the deleted articles were to be un-deleted, please? -- Alice 12:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me :) I think I'll be able to sort it out within a week and say if I won't manage in time to fix any content by the end of the next Sunday I'll just delete it or list it here for deletion. Dronych (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ypsilon, I see that the content from the articles is already wiped out. Is there any way you can send me the content that was removed so I can work on it. And OK, this is what I call being too fast and based on the decision of only 1 person (Saqib). Dronych (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have it, and I think nobody has. The articles that you added content to don't exist any longer because Saqib deleted them - not a good idea, obviously. The articles would have to be "undeleted", something that just administrators have tools to do. Unfortunately I have now made new articles for these destinations, so I suspect that the old ones with their content cannot be returned, sorry :(. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Dronych, please don't blame me. It's actually you who created a lot of mess lately. Articles that are completely infringements are falls under speedy deletion criteria on WV as well on WP and usually a user who repeatedly do copyvio is blocked instantly. --Saqib (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, if you were following the rules - then that's fine with me. Although I can see that other guys (ϒpsilon, User:Alice) were willing to give it a second chance and try to keep some information from those articles. And thus it was not completely inappropriate to do so. So please don't hide behind those rules. These were mainly your decisions rather than rules. You decided to do it in the way you see things rather than anything else like trying to contact me, give me a warning or something else. And so your response was to delete and then threat with being blocked. Well, can't call this kind of attitude as being nice or productive. Cheers Dronych (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Dronych, there's nothing personal here. If you want to fix your mistake, why don't you re-write the material that you simply copy-pasted before? There're still many articles to which you contributed and I've only reverted your edits, you can start from those and once you're done then I can send you the material that you copy-pasted in now deleted articles. Second thing, its true that such behaviour (copyvio) is not allowed on WV and one who do it is actually deserves to be blocked. --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, Cool, man. But why didn't you propose this approach from the beginning but rather decided to savage all stuff I wrote? And sorry again I started it personal in the other thread. Dronych (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, folks, let's slow down here. Were the articles created by Dronych entirely copyright violations, or only in part? Powers (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Powers, articles mentioned above were created by Dronych and they were entirely copyvio so I've deleted them. Dronych copy-pasted copyrighted text into some articles he didn't created so I undid his edits to those articles but many more are still remaining. --Saqib (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
For the first 4 articles mentioned this is true - I'm on the way to get to these sites so I've been doing some research about it and put it here. OK, thanks you corrected me - I needed to do it following the rules, that's obvious. About the last 4 ones (Valbona, Prijepolje, Novi Pazar, Sremski Karlovci.) - I contributed there myself as well, based on my experience. Anyway, if you can send me that deleted content back at some point so I can fix it - that'll be great. Dronych (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Events by date[edit]

Pages on events by month have only maintenance updates in the last few years. Contain an odd collection events, omit many that should be in such a list and contain many that are incorrect or no longer exist. I started on the first few month to tidy but check out April ad beyond.

Calendar of events and festivals
January | February | March | April | May | June
July | August | September | October | November | December

Events should be on the pages of locations. These pages are of little use to readers. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep; being out of date is no reason to delete a page; if it was, we'd be deleting a lot more destinations. Monthly calendars are useful for someone who knows when she wants to travel but not where. Powers (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
agree it would be a good idea but this method is not going to work. No one updates. I think the only way is to auto generate a list from entries in city pages.--Traveler100 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That's no good; the list would be too long. Powers (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Not if events were graded (global/local interest) --Traveler100 (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like that's just one more problem with this 'list'. There was a time when we were strongly opposed to the creation of list articles. --Inas (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Any events in the past should definitely be removed however, and only recurring events kept. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering these lists have been around for over ten years, I'm curious when that time was, Inas. Powers (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep on the same basis as Andrewssi2 offered above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Taxila[edit]

I'm going to significantly work on Taxila guide and hoping to bringing it up to guide status in upcoming weeks but I would like to start from scratch as most of the material has been simply copy-pasted into this article from Wikipedia. I've started my draft at User:Saqib/Taxila. --Saqib (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

*Keep. This article has a history going back to 23 December 2006‎. I'd suggest that you go ahead and continue with your draft, substituting at will whenever you are ready, but that the article stay up as is in the meantime. [Edit: See discussion below - I'm willing to countenance deletion under specific conditions.] Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure but as I said I'll need couple of weeks to complete the article so during that time, what if someone contributed to this one in main namespace. Don't you think it will make difficulty in later merging that newly added material to this article into my draft? To clarify my RfD, once this article get deleted, I'll eventually move my draft into main namespace. --Saqib (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth dropping some sort of template or {{notice}} on the article to point to the draft, much like w:template:construction or w:template:in use indicate something is in the process of being rewritten? K7L (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pashley (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, and develop the draft in your user space. Once it's more or less ready to go into mainspace, we can decide if it's reasonable to delete the old version and post your draft as a brand new article. I'd be okay with that in principle, since all major contributions are pre-move and mostly from Wikipedia anyway. However, you'll have to make sure to not use the current article at all. A template should help, indeed. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about keeping this article, as others seem to enthusiastically want to do. Keep in mind we're dealing with a copyvio here - regardless of the fact that the source of the information is one of our sister projects, it's not properly sourced per the CC license. I think that's a pretty tough argument to get around. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sure, an important part of the article has been improperly attributed - but it was attributed, probably in good faith and in a way that was quite common on Wikipedia itself for a long time. Easy enough to fix (I will, for now), but of course we prefer original content, so rewriting and replacing seems a good idea. However, a substantial part was not copied, and considering the effort to attribute, I do think "copyvio" is a rather harsh judgement. There's no harm in leaving the old article up while Saqib works on the new one. Everyone satisfied :-) (But I can't say I'll mind much if we delete it now either). JuliasTravels (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than simply giving attribution, we should completely remove the material in Understand section. I remember IK once said me that copy pasting content from other websites including Wikipedia lower the search results for our articles. I'm planning to travel to Taxila very soon (as part of my journey across Pakistan) and I'm pretty sure that I'll able to bring my draft up-to guide status thereafter but as of now, I also do thinks that my draft is a lot better (though mine was is not complete or even not near usable yet) than current copy in main namespace. Anyways, I would still suggest you guys to please consider moving my draft into main NS. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like to move your draft into the article, why don't you go ahead and do so? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure but majority of votes above clearly says to keep the current copy. I can go ahead, delete the current copy and replace it with my draft but I just don't want to get into any conflict. --Saqib (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, Ikan is proposing that you merge the text of your draft into the article without deleting it first. Most of the commenters above objected to deleting and then recreating it. What Ikan is proposing essentially does not amount to anything more than simply editing the article. You don't need permission for that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But I'm not in favour of it. If I'm getting it correct, IK and Julias have stated above that once my draft is ready or nearly ready, we can delete the current copy in main NS and move my draft into main NS and as I said above "I do thinks that my draft is a lot better (though is not yet completed) than current copy in main namespace" and I think I'm it is almost ready to go live. I don't understand why IK now suggesting me to incorporate my draft text into existing copy. --Saqib (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You can do anything you think best, up to and including substituting your entire draft for the current article. All I object to is deleting the article, and thereby deleting the article's editing history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, keep if only so we keep the attribution & history. I see no reason to consider deleting the current article. I do think your draft is better and large chunks of current text should be replaced; I'd say we could start that process now but if you want a bit longer to work on it in user space that is OK too. Pashley (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
For an earlier example of copyvio text being replaced, see Talk:Silk_Road#Early_discussion. That rewrite was done in 2006 but article history still goes back to 2004; we did not delete the article, just replaced the text. Pashley (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's arguably fine to delete and replace a new article that's purely copied from Wikipedia, but one with such a long history should not be considered for deletion and replacement, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Strange! after reading above comments, now I realised there was actually no reason to start an article from scratch in my user namespace if now we're not going to delete the existing copy. I could had simply start editing the existing one if I knew the conclusions and it would have been a lot much better. But anyways, can we at-least now merge both the articles rather than simply doing a copy-paste so that Pashley will be credited too in the history since he've made contributions to my draft. --Saqib (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible. Delete the existing article and move yours into its place. At that point, it's possible to undelete any old revisions you want to keep - effectively merging them into the edit history of the new article. A couple of caveats: keeping the old revisions raises attribution issues (including that pesky "contains content from other websites" footer that we really want to lose from an SEO standpoint) and, once merged, the two article histories are rather awkward to pull back apart if you want or need to undo this for any reason. Certainly, though, this is valid as WP admins use this approach to repair copy-paste moves. K7L (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And I'm trying to get rid of that annoying footer but can't argue since the community is clearly in favour of keeping it. --Saqib (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In Favor of deleting and replacing with a new version as an effort to determine if it affects our search engine results. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it will no doubt affect our search engine results. Taxila is the most visited and important site of Pakistan and having an article on it without WT footer will give us pretty good SEO. Many people may able to use our guide. On a related note: I created Mohenjo-daro from scratch last year with no WT footer and so far the article got 10,000+ page hits whereas biggest cities of Pakistan (Lahore and Islamabad) both still have less than 6,500 page hits just because they've WT footer. I think we should delete antique articles (where possible) for the sake of better SEO. --Saqib (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the old version of the article and replace by a new version prepared by Saqib and Pashley (by moving it). The content is completely new (and better and, I believe Saqib will keep improving it), so no reason to keep the WT footer. Danapit (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dana. Ikan Kekek, on English Wikipedia, two among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is article age and number of editors involved. Other than that, on many occasions, articles repeatedly created and deleted on English Wikipedia, even featured articles I've been told. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, you referenced arguments about notability. We don't deal with such arguments on this site, so the fact that the age of an article is no proof that its subject is notable is not relevant to our deliberations.
I would prefer for the article history to exist somewhere, though I understand the point of eliminating the attribution notice at the bottom of the page, and if others think it's totally alright to eliminate 8 years worth of history and delete the article, I won't stand in the way. However, I would like an explanation of when and why it's OK to do this, before any deletion takes place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I maybe wrong with my referenced argument. I don't understand what do you mean by "why it's OK to do this before any deletion takes place". Btw. If you really want to keep the article history, one compromise would be to rename the current copy in the main NS to Taxila (Pakistan), delete the redirect, rename my draft to Taxila and redirect Taxila (Pakistan) to Taxila. In this which we can keep the 8 years worth of history of Taxila. --Saqib (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. Will that work for SEO? I've edited my previous post, so that it's at least a bit easier to understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for co-operation and yes I'm pretty much sure it will work for SEO purpose. Now back to your question, I'm not in hurry to make move since this one is not a speedy deletion candidate. I prefer to keep open this discussion for 2 weeks as we do usually with VfD's but as I said above what if someone contributed to article in main namespace, their edits will go hidden somewhere behind a redirect. Also in the meantime, I request you to either strike your "keep" vote or change it to "delete" for record. I will continue to develop my draft and ask everyone to make edits directly to it. --Saqib (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me, Saqib, I'd like to be cautious. I'm willing to support a form of deletion that maintains the article history, providing that there is a consensus that agrees to this. So I'll strike out "Keep" above, but I want everyone to understand, as you do, that I am not giving blanket support for a simple deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The solution you suggested with keeping the history is an ideal one, I find. Danapit (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I view this as a one off to see if it changes readership. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)