Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from VFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 deletion 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.


Add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else.

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.

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:

Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~


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

* '''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. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not[edit]

  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
  • If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above.
  • 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.
  • When deleting an article, check "What links here". Either remove the newly-broken links from the articles or point them somewhere else. Inbound redirects to a deleted page should either be deleted or redirected elsewhere.


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).

When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion.

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

December 2019[edit]

Istanbul Atatürk Airport[edit]

A page about an airport without passenger flights has no purpose on this website. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with the caveat that there are still a couple of dozen other pages which link to the article, so those need to be dealt with.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
There weren't as many of these as I initially thought (most of the list was projectspace or userspace), and so I have managed to deal with the remaining mainspace links, aside from redirects which should remain until this is concluded.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Mark historical. I find it a pity to make the page, which once was useful, unavailable for readers. It isn't useful for travellers as such any more, but having it does little harm – given that the header makes it clear where to go for actual travel information. Keeping it will also make links on or off site continue to lead travellers to our relevant and up-to-date articles; there will be outdated links from elsewhere for years to come. I detest sites with link rot. --LPfi (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    We don't keep listings for closed businesses anywhere else on WV. Why should we do so for an airport? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This isn't an Olympic Games. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect Merge and redirect to Istanbul#By plane. Possibly add a mention of it in Istanbul for general aviation. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Already mentioned in Istanbul#By plane.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Delete and redirect? Why delete the history if there is going to be a page with that name? --LPfi (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Oops, you're right. "Merge and redirect" is what we'd normally say, isn't it? (Except that there is no content to be merged since it's already mentioned on Istanbul.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Bigpeteb. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If that airport will still be used for general aviation, it should indeed be redirected to Istanbul. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: do those who support "redirect" want to merge as well, or not? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    I don't really see any content to merge. It's already mentioned on Istanbul, and only because it's available for general aviation. If not for that, there'd be no need to mention it at all. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Gizza (roam) 00:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect - changed my vote.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]

Thomas Land[edit]

  • Delete, unless User:SteaminThomasTheTrain32 decides during the course of this vote for deletion to make this into a non-touty listing in the appropriate destination article. Right now, it certainly doesn't pass the Wikivoyage:What is an article test, and even if it were a listing, it is a promotional one that is quite strongly at variance with Wikivoyage:Manual of style. So far, efforts to solicit cooperation at User talk:SteaminThomasTheTrain32 have produced only weird pushback, and another reason I'm not hopeful is this absurd warningbox that was in the "article" in question until I just deleted it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace or Delete. Only possibility would be as a travel topic as the attractions are in different locations, but not a particularly compelling topic. Prefer your suggestion on the authors talk page to move it their user space. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge: The two places that have Thomas Lands (Carver Massachusetts and Tamworth (England)) already list the parks. I don't think there's much content worth merging from the Thomas Land page, but if there is, then those articles are the proper place to merge to. The Thomas Land page can then be turned into a disambig.
Travel topic: Alternatively, if User:SteaminThomasTheTrain32 has (a lot) more to write about Thomas that is relevant to a travel guide, then the theme parks and the various Days Out With Thomas sites could possibly be spun into a travel topic, which could maybe also include real locations on the Isle of Man that inspired places on the Island of Sodor.
I would love to be proven wrong when I say that I doubt the user's seriousness.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For a small theme park (as I said on the user's talk page, this park has just 18 rides per WP), the right place for the information is the closest city article. But there doesn't seem to be any useful information in this article, just a list of rides and an overload of photos (if I understand correctly this one isn't even from the park in the UK but from Japan) so I say delete. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge as necessary and delete. Also: ThunderingTyphoons! and Ikan Kekek, remember that discussion about a proposed CIR policy when the two of you said we didn't need to come up with a whole new policy just to deal with one problem user, and I said "I'm pretty sure I remember some past occasions unrelated to [that user] where I've wished CIR was a Wikivoyage policy, so I'll be keeping my eye out for future cases to bolster the argument in favor of this policy?" Well, this user is another would-be CIR case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Duly warned :-) 🚂 --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I still think existing policies and guidelines are quite sufficient to deal with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm not trying to go against the crowd here, as in the long term, it should probably be deleted. However, considering the editor's apparent unwillingness to move this to draftspace, I think we might as well wait a little while to see what this user adds, and then we can consider merging or moving the content. We could still get something useful out of what he plans to add. No harm can be done, as few people are likely to find this Thomas the Tank Engine article anyway. (As long as it's not linked from any other page.) If we act like we're going along with this user's game for a couple of weeks, we might actually have better results than simply deleting/redirecting/merging the article now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an interesting idea that IMO is worth considering. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't see any content in the article as it currently is that is worth salvaging and merging into the respective destinations. It could be made into a disambiguation or travel topic page later on but for now it is just spam and should be deleted. Gizza (roam) 22:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace (or delete) Thomas Land is part of Drayton Manor Theme Park which has a listing in Tamworth (England). A part of a theme park could never be an article, and there is no useful information in the article. However the author may be a younger contributer so we should proceed with caution, and I am happy to wait a month or so before taking action. AlasdairW (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not inclined to cross out my delete vote, but I'll just say that I'm happy to go along with a move to that individual's user page, if they ever express any interest in that (otherwise, not), and I'm willing to let the "article" stay up for more than the VfD period if that's the consensus (although I think that just delays the inevitable). I'm a little doubtful a redirect to a disambig page is a good solution, but I'd be willing to hear that out, too, if there's a consensus for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Surely if there is to be no Thomas Land article, a disambiguation between the three (at least) Thomas Land parks pointing to the correct listings in city articles is the default? Or if not, when did we start deleting real places? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this a real "place" or just a promotional listing disguised as an article? Like I said, I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is, but I'm a little skeptical of redirecting an "article" that never should have been started. Just convince me; that's all. Exactly how many entries would there be in a disambig page? Edited: Above, there's a reference to two places. Do two places require a disambig? Is one clearly bigger than the other, such that we could use a "See also" link or some such? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we have disambiguation pages for chains? I think searching on the name is efficient enough and what readers will expect. For the merge and delete suggestions: we have to keep attribution (the licence is cc-by-sa). I'd be hesitant to advise adding content worth merging to an article going to be deleted. Better add that content to the destinations directly. Having this as a user page would be OK, though, especially if the user thinks they might be able to make it a valid travel topic. I am sceptical, but I don't know the park.
The images seem to be uncategorised on Commons. Categorisation, adding descriptions and maybe creating a gallery at Commons is probably easier before the page is deleted, so that could be a way for the user (or somebody else) to salvage their work.
--LPfi (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Legoland, SeaWorld.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Drayton Manor is the UK location. And if you wanted to list anything related to Thomas in the UK, it would be a long list of things covered in Tourist Trains, Railway history etc... Most of the locations in the original book series have real world equivalents (at least in terms of operational practice..). If someone wanted to do a proper 'Pilgrim's Tour' of Sodor for April this year, I wouldn't object. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

LGBT Stockholm[edit]

Per Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travel#Why there's no "LGBT" section, LGBT listings should be integrated into destination articles in their relevant sections. If having a separate "LGBT" section or subsection of a destination is not desired, surely having it all in a separate article is even less desirable. Thus I think we should merge and redirect this article. (And if so, we should also reconsider the text in the lede of Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travel that cites this article as an example of LGBT as an acceptable travel topic.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I launched the as an experiment. Finding enough material to merit an article might be difficult, and there are other online resources (such as RFSL and QX ) which provide similar information which is more updated. /Yvwv (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: we have articles for Literary London, Harry Potter tourism, diving in various countries, and for travelling with children (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, including Stockholm with children). I think its useful to have specialist articles so that people with a specific interest can read up to see if there us enough in one destination to make a trip worthwhile. Tghat doesn't mean that information of specific interest to LGBT people would beremoved from the main article, anymore than information for people with kids is removed now. I think Wikivoyage could be appealing to readers who are looking for special itineraries, like "New York City for Jews", "England for trainspotters", etc. Ground Zero (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is an interesting question. On the face of it, "LGBT wherever" is a legitimate travel topic. The issue is that it does contradict the guideline quoted by Bigpeteb. So should we reconsider this guideline? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: let's be clear that the guideline explicitly allows this type of article: "Nothing in this policy precludes the creation of travel topics such as LGBT Stockholm." Thus article does not contradict the guideline. In fact, to delete article, we would need to change the guideline. Maybe this discussion should be taking place at Wikivoyage talk:Information for LGBT travel rather than here. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment - Can you find a single other example of such a page? I can't. The only other such page that even exists is Belfast/Gay and lesbian Belfast, which was merged and redirected to Belfast in 2013, I would imagine for the exact same reasons I'm nominating this page. I think this is a sole outlier, and that there's no content here that doesn't belong in Stockholm, just as we have done for lots of other cities that are notable LGBT destinations. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
        • The outcome of this discussion was to keep this article. We also have an article on LGBT-friendly beach resorts, and the "with children" and Literary London articles for readers with special interests are absolutely analogous to this page. What is the argument for deleting this article and keeping the "with children" and similar articles? Even if it were the first and only of this type, that should not prevent us from keeping it as a model. Wikivoyage is still growing. Or, at least, it will keep growing if we allow it and encourage it to do so. Is there any content in the "with children" articles that we wouldn't have in the destination articles? Or are the "with children" articles just showing parents the information they are looking for in a convenient summary? Ground Zero (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
          • I see your point about how articles about "[Destination] for children" are fine, but I'm not convinced there will ever be as much utility in an "LGBT [destination]" article. Kid-friendly activities will probably be spread all across the city, but LGBT things in most cities are concentrated in single neighborhoods like New York City/Chelsea, San Francisco/Castro, Chicago/Boystown, Atlanta/Midtown, etc. And what kinds of things would we list in such an article? National policies should be (and generally are) covered in national or region articles. Pride parades are explicitly for allies as well as LGBT people, so they should be and are mentioned on city pages. There aren't a whole lot of LGBT museums or activities. (Well, there are certainly things like community sports leagues and such, but those aren't helpful for short-term visitors.) I don't know what an LGBT restaurant or hotel would be. The main thing people are looking for is bars/clubs, but those can be and are listed in city and district articles.
            I'll admit this is being hampered by the generally poor coverage of LGBT on WV, even in some of the most famously LGBT-friendly cities. See the paltry listings in the aforementioned articles. I've tried to improve that with my contributions to Seattle/Capitol Hill and Tokyo/Shinjuku. Even so, if I were to write an LGBT Seattle article, I don't think it would be any more useful than where we already say "Capitol Hill is Seattle's gay district" and then let readers find what they're looking for in that district.
            I'd be much more supportive of national articles. If we had an article like LGBT United States, we could talk about the history of gay rights in the U.S., go into more detail on national and state policies (such as bathroom bills), and list and describe LGBT-friendly (or -unfriendly) destinations. I think that would have a lot more utility than an "LGBT [city]" article ever will. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I've updated and expanded the article, so now I think it's not so bad. It puts all of the queer bars in one article, rather than spreading them around the Stockholm neighbourhood articles. I also addedcacsauna, which needn't goninnthe city if neighbourhood articles. That alone is useful. Not every city is going to have enough to warrant an LGBT article, but thag shouldn't stop people from creating LGBT city articles (or LGBT regional or national articles) where there is enough to list. I am planning an LGBT Toronto article as a result of thus discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Keep - I think that we should add a sentence to Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travel#Why there's no "LGBT" section saying that complete articles for destinations that have a lot to interest a LGBT traveller are welcome, as they are for any other "special group". I think that having a separate section in a destination article would suggest that these listing are only for LGBT, when they should just appear by price, district etc as other listings. There is no conflict in welcoming complete articles while opposing sections in destination articles. AlasdairW (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I too think it's perfectly OK to have LGBT articles for important gay travel destinations ie. places where there is a lot to write about when it comes to LGBT culture. If it's not a place where people travel specifically for LGBT events, establishments and what have you, then it probably doesn't need such an article . Ypsilon (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no objection to this kind of article, but I'm not understanding why if it's inappropriate to have separate "LGBT" sections in articles, it's perfectly OK to have separate LGBT articles. Could we discuss the thinking behind that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikivoyage_talk:Information_for_LGBT_travel would be a good place to start that discussion if you want to. Ground Zero (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
See the end of Wikivoyage talk:Information for LGBT travel#Wikivoyage should have LGBT city articles and please participate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge It doesn't have much content. Are the eateries actually gay venues? Is The Royal Opera a gay venue or what is inferred in its description as "frequented by gay men"? The gay sauna is a pay for sex venue that should probably be deleted, and the other gay bars could probably be put in the Stockholm article and in the LGBT article's Stockholm subsection of Europe along with the legal information and information about "sexual minority features at some local museums" during the week of the Pride parade/festival. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: the article gathers together the venues of particular interest to LGBT people from across the Stockholm neighbourhood articles, so it is useful to readers, like "for children" articles are useful for parents. It is permitted by the guideline, so there isn't a basis for deleting it. I haven't been to a gay sauna, but they are not about prostitution any more than a bar or hotel is. Ground Zero (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess you were too focused on responding with the same response you gave above to read my vote, but I didn't vote to delete it. I voted to merge the content because there's barely anything there and a lot of it doesn't justify itself as presented in the article. What is there would not burden the LGBT article or the Stockholm article. The gay sauna is probably a different discussion, but are you sure that there aren't any gay saunas that employ people to have sex with patrons? I don't think you can guarantee that and I think the likelihood that some or many of them do is high. I don't know if there is a way of knowing, but I suspect there are shady practices, possibly even involving sexual slavery, in some countries while other countries likely have better practices like other parts of the sex industry. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I should have written "there is no basis in the guideline for merging the article." As I mentioned above, assembling all of the information of particular interest to LGBT people from across the Stockholm neighbourhood articles is useful to readers. It is fine as a topic article like our other topic articles. Tourism agencies have pages for LGBT people and other groups with special interests, presumably because there are people looking for those pages, so why wouldn't we?
At 5,500 bytes, it is not a short article. You can check Special:ShortPages. We have 10,000 articles that are 3,600 bytes or shorter.
If you're going to raise the spectre of sexual slavery, or even prostitution, in a Stockholm sauna, I think the ball is in your court to provide some sort of evidence as justification for deletion. I have never heard of gay saunas in developed countries employing prostitutes, but I could be wrong. Ground Zero (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
We merge content that can't hold articles all the time. There's lots of precedent for merging articles with very little content like this one. I suspect most of those 10,000 articles are at least city or regional articles. We have specific guidelines that favor keeping city and region articles. Stubby travel topics are not the same. There is no fallback for a stubby travel topic. Because there are an infinite number of articles that could be created as "travel topics", if one can't hold an article, it doesn't need an article. There are only 6 venues listed that are clearly LGBT, one having only a monthly gay event. Those could easily be listed in the GLBT article where it will still be found by those interested in the topic. I don't think this is enough to warrant an entire travel topic dedicated to it. Other cities, maybe, but not this one.
You need to reread the Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy, because it explicitly states "Locations or listings of brothels or bars where sexual services may be purchased (directly or indirectly)." Going to a gay sauna is paying for sex whether you'd categorize it as directly or indirectly, and the policy does not exempt developed countries. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
In a place like Stockholm, while people go to a sauna (or a bar) to meet someone for sex, you pay for the services of the sauna or entry into and drinks at a bar. If you have sex with someone you meet there, that's between you and the person you meet. If you pay $100 for a beer and an employee has sex with you, then you are paying indirectly for sex. That is very different from paying for the use of a sauna. Ground Zero (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
On the face of it, I agree that this is not much of a travel topic article and could easily be merged back into Stockholm and relevant Stockholm district articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we have a policy or guideline that says that travel topic articles have to reach a critical mass before they can be kept? I can't find such a policy. For the sake of keeping all of the LGBT info for Stockholm in one place, would it be better to have this as a section of the Stockholm city article with the bar and sauna listings, or as a stand-alone article? Ground Zero (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
We have a policy that kind of amounts to that, yep. See Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Reasons to delete articles:
*...they are travel topics that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year, and there is no suitable travel topic to redirect to. Template:Outlinetopic should be used to tag topics at the outline level.
The problem is that Template:Outlinetopic was changed in this edit and then again this time, in spite of there seemingly being no consensus for those edits. I think Traveler100 needs to explain the justification for those 2014 edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: thanks for finding that. So this doesn't apply in this case because the article has been substantively edited in the last year. Beyond that, I dont think this us an the outline level anymore. I think it us usable. Wikivoyage:Travel topic status says a travel topic is:
"Outline:" Has at least an introduction (this can be as short as a single sentence explaining what the topic is) and an outline of headers laid out for the article, similar to standard Wikivoyage destination templates. Some of the sections of the outline may have content, but not all of them.
"Usable:" Has at least a good overview of the topic, and some useful material under each heading.
I think this article is more on the Usable side than on the Outline side. Further, I am concerned that if we are willing to have LGBT destination articles, like "for children" destination articles, but we delete the only one we have, we are setting a bad precedent. Ground Zero (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)