Talk:Six days hiking on Moskenesøy
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Saqib in topic Second VFD discussion
Page Blank
[edit]This page was blanked by one of the original contributors. Rather than blanking a page please either list it on Project:Votes for deletion or else redirect it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:24, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
VFD Discussion
[edit]- Delete. The trail description is not exact enough. To follow this route you need a detailed map, and a key to the cabin - you can not get either key or map nearby. It is a diffcult and long route, there are better options in the same area. (WT-en) Tofola 09:14, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
- Why wouldn't we just add this info to the article, and let the traveller decide? --(WT-en) inas 19:20, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
- Keep Yes, the information is currently insufficient, but it has enough of a layout to allow someone to add to it. If you have more information about this hike, like where to get the key and such, then why not add it? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
- Keep. As I argued above. --(WT-en) inas 22:45, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:06, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Second VFD discussion
[edit]This article was nominated for deletion on 23 August 2013 but was redirected. The deletion debate is Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2013#Six_days_hiking_on_Moskenes.C3.B8y. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.
- Delete Article has not been updated for years. The article is still missing central information to make this hiking tour possible, and it is not safe to do this hiking with out this information (eg. where to find boat, bus, where to get key to cabin and what map to bring). Since the topic is more like a personal hiking report, it is not easy to find and fill in this information. The article meet the requirements for deleting a wiki travel article, since it is an itinerary that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year.
It was also deleted on wikitravel for same reasons: http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion#Six_days_hiking_on_Moskenes.C3.B8y Added by 213.166.174.2 12:59, 23 August 2013
- Comment I don't think it's strictly relevant here what the other site does ;) Danapit (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Merge (to where?) or delete: otherwise I rather agree with the arguments for deletion. We have 1 year protection period for outline articles. That has passed without nobody adding any useful content. Some of the information could be merged, but as I am not familiar with the area, I wouldn't know where to. Danapit (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Moskenesøya. Texugo (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment - Incidentally, there is a previous vfd discussion for this one in 2009 at Talk:Six days hiking on Moskenesøy, but I think it has already had more than plenty of time to be developed, if it were going to be. The article has already been tagged for merging to Moskenesøya since April, and I think it can be merged there without further ado. Texugo (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Funny thing that the 2009 VFD was even initiated by the article's creator. Danapit (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment - Incidentally, there is a previous vfd discussion for this one in 2009 at Talk:Six days hiking on Moskenesøy, but I think it has already had more than plenty of time to be developed, if it were going to be. The article has already been tagged for merging to Moskenesøya since April, and I think it can be merged there without further ado. Texugo (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to type "Six days hiking on Moskenesøy" in the search box so then why redirect? --Saqib (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree that a redirect would be pointless. Texugo (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- As do I, so I'd say merge anything useful and then delete. Pashley (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Done --Saqib (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- As do I, so I'd say merge anything useful and then delete. Pashley (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree that a redirect would be pointless. Texugo (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The page should not be deleted; the merged content must be attributed, and there's no way to do that without keeping the page as a redirect. LtPowers (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this was not a speedy deletion candidate and should not have been deleted after less than 24 hours on the VfD page. LtPowers (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- LtPowers is right. Why was this hastily deleted? Standard procedure should have been followed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have restored it, given the attribution issue LtPowers mentioned, but in general, things which have a merge tag for months and have already been merged don't really need to be brought up here and discussed for 2 weeks before being redirected, right? Texugo (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- True, but not without attribution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have restored it, given the attribution issue LtPowers mentioned, but in general, things which have a merge tag for months and have already been merged don't really need to be brought up here and discussed for 2 weeks before being redirected, right? Texugo (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- LtPowers is right. Why was this hastily deleted? Standard procedure should have been followed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this was not a speedy deletion candidate and should not have been deleted after less than 24 hours on the VfD page. LtPowers (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Result: Redirected to Moskenesøya. --Saqib (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)