Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Vfd)
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. 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]

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

August 2016[edit]

Florida lighthouses[edit]

The purpose of this article seems unclear to me. It is also a list-stub. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I think a merger does seem best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Redirects in non-Latin alphabets, characters, etc.: Берлин, Велигденски Остров, Ленингр́ад, אַשְׁקְלוֹן, العيون, عسقلان, गुजरात, 中国, 云南, 内蒙古自治区, 冰岛, 北京, 南非, 台灣, 哈尔滨, 喀什市, 大韩民国, 宁夏, 广州, 朝鲜, 朝鲜民主主义人民共和国, 臺灣, 重庆[edit]

  • Question: Do I need to put the "vfd" template at the tops of all these redirects? I sure the hell hope not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Well somebody should. That's one way we notify interested users of the discussion. If it helps, the titles should be removed from the section heading on this page and placed in a bulleted list within the section; that will make it easier to link the section from the VfD templates. Powers (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I would say delete all but if the non-Latin is the name of the location in the language of the country it is in, then the non-latin text should be added to the article so that search will find it. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The local name for every place, when different from the Roman-lettered name, should always be provided at the top of the article. Isn't this standard practice? It should be so noted somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree as well. Pashley (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it is useful to have redirects from the local name, whatever the script. It is easy to check against the name as it appears in the article, so the maintenance burden is minimal, and this would make it turn up without a search. It might have some SEO advantage, but foremost it is very useful for those who know the local script but not the English name: the title is (isn't it?) auto-completed in the search box, while the search may return nothing if I make a typing mistake – and typing in a foreign script may be awkward. I for one use the search only as a last resort. --LPfi (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines[edit]

  • Pointless redirect (points to "flying" of all things) in violation of policy on articles on companies. Note: I got the distinct feeling I had already nominated this article earlier, but could not find the vfd discussion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There was a prior nomination at Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2013#American_Airlines which was used to make a w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to keep a redirect for Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2016#Ryanair. I could see keeping these to preserve attribution if they had an edit history with text that had been merged into some other article still extant, but there's nothing interesting in the history - just various redirects to pages on air travel in the United States. The same issues apply to the even more pointless American Eagle redirect. I'd delete both as they contain no useful info and no useful history. K7L (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects such as this make it clear where content about airlines should go, and it avoids leaving the reader who searches this term with nothing but a long list of articles which include mention of the airline. It emphatically does not violate our policy against articles on companies because it is not an article. Powers (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Errrm. Please have a look here the way I understand the line on companies redirects are frowned upon unless they are for companies that are more or less synonymous with the concept (e.g. Amtrak as a redirect to rail travel in the United States), though we can certainly argue getting rid of the handful of permitted/grandfathered redirects as well. This redirect (which, I might remind you, points to Flying) is neither permitted by policy - at least the way I understand it - nor does it offer much help to anybody. We could conceivably point that redirect to air travel in the United States, but then we would have to create redirects for a whole many airlines more. Plus, I am not sure American Airlines even still exists, and I definitely will oppose any Trans World Airlines or Pan Am Airlines articles or redirects. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. LtPowers makes a compelling argument, redirects are cheap, and Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting specifically calls out "a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article". -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • We don't have articles on private companies. (Except of course for Disney and a very small handful of other exceptions). If we want to change this policy, we can (though I do not think of that as a good idea), but we currently also have - for similar reasons - a limit on redirects for private companies. As a further aside, please consider where this redirect points. It's not exactly helpful for the hypothetical person to search American Airlines only to be pointed to the most general article possible. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • It's a redirect, not an article, and guidance on redirects notes that redirects are deleted if "The redirect could be considered self-promotion or spam (see also WV:Don't tout). Individual restaurants, bars, hotels or other businesses should not get redirects, although exceptions are made for large and/or important businesses and services like Amtrak (see #3 in the following section)." -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Well I interpret the policy differently as also disallowing redirects for private companies and only allowing them in the rare cases when one company has become quasi-synonymous with the concept (it could be called "lex Amtrak" because that's practically the only redirect I would apply it to). I am not quite happy with having redirects for the hundreds of commercial airlines operating international flights all being created as redirects pointing to flying. There is not exactly much gained from having this redirect and it provides a "stuff exists" argument for some hypothetical airline redirect pcv. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I agree with Hobbitschuster's reasoning on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
            • WV:What is an article? only addresses redirects as alternatives to article creation. It does not explicitly prohibit any kind of redirect, as its topic is articles, not redirects. I understand the concern about proliferating redirects; I would keep the list to the flag carriers of major nations and the three remaining U.S. legacy carriers only. Maybe 20 at the most -- basically, the airlines that a reader might actually use in a search to see whether or not airlines have articles here. Powers (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Northern Rhodesia[edit]

  • Delete. This article was created as a redirect to Zambia, but since white supremacists in the former British colony of Southern Rhodesia declared independence and ran the land as "Rhodesia" for over a decade, the name "Northern Rhodesia", if still used by anyone, is at least as likely to mean "Northern Zimbabwe" as Zambia. And since no place has been named any kind of Rhodesia since, what, 1980?, I don't think we should disambiguate this redirect, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's from the Telstra IP user, so just speedy delete it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and potentially make an alert (similar to the alert showing when someone uses repeating characters or emoji) when someone uses the term "Rhodesia", as there are few legitimate uses on this site (e.g. once or twice in the lede when discussion history) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Speedily deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This was the actual official name of what is now Zambia for decades. It absolutely should be a redirect. Powers (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being too hasty to delete. That said, I know that under the British, Northern Rhodesia was what's now Zambia and Southern Rhodesia was what's now Zimbabwe. But you really don't understand that people who remember Zimbabwe as "Rhodesia", with no "Southern" in the name would be confused by the redirect? If you want to reinstate the redirect, I think it would really be necessary to create a disambig page in which that whole history is briefly explained. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the lieutenant; the historical term Northern Rhodesia should be kept as a redirect to the current name, Zambia. Pashley (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said, if you restore the redirect, it's important to have a disambig page that explains the history. I thought that would really be beyond Wikivoyage's purview, but if you guys insist, I think the explanation is essential. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any need for a dab page unless people are likely to use the term "Northern Rhodesia" to look for a region of Zimbabwe. Since "Northern Zimbabwe" isn't a region in our hierarchy, this seems unlikely. Has any area of Zimbabwe ever been commonly referred to as "Northern Rhodesia", even during the period when the country was just "Rhodesia"? Powers (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there is a specific WV region of "Northern Rhodesia" or "Southern Rhodesia"; people who remember the white-minority government of "Rhodesia" but don't remember the British names for their Southern African colonies will think of "Northern Rhodesia" and "Southern Rhodesia" as both being within what's now Zimbabwe. I insist that a disambiguation is necessary if you guys want to use colonial-era redirects (though I don't think they're necessary). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems there is precendence to redirect. Abyssinia redirects to Ethiopia, Siam to Thailand, Ceylon to Sri Lanka. I don't know well, but the minimal research I did showed only Zambia as Northern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe as Southern Rhodesia. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I personally know two people who thought that both terms referred to parts of what's now Zimbabwe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If I may, I think that's a separate issue than what we're discussing. The question is not "what do people think of when they hear 'Northern Rhodesia'?"; it's "what place are people who refer to 'Northern Rhodesia' looking for?" I think it's pretty undeniable that no one will look for Zimbabwean destinations by searching for "Northern Rhodesia". Powers (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You make a good point. I still think, though, that the different uses of "Rhodesia", "Northern Rhodesia" and "Southern Rhodesia" would be worth a disambig, but OK, go ahead and restore this redirect, and sorry again for being overly hasty to delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Powers again. The redirect is not necessary, but it may be slightly useful and if not it is harmless, so keep. I do not think a disambig would be useful, let alone required. Pashley (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There are a whole lot of redirects from historical to current names. A partial list is at User_talk:Pashley/Archive#Test_old_names. Pashley (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure I like the unsavory aspects of redirecting for names that are today only ever used by (ahem) people of a certain political bent. That is true for former colonial names, German names for cities in what is now Poland, the Czech Republic and a half dozen other states and possibly for a bunch of other names. But maybe that's just me being oversensitive... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I certainly understand it. I think it's a bit weird, at least, to have redirects from all these colonial names that haven't been used in 50 years or more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Paranormal tourism[edit]

Per the credibility concern noted on the talk page and the fact that since it was created there doesn't seem to have been much progress made on this, compared to the other articles started at the same time.

Nomination as article originator, from alternate account. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If the cryptid material was reformulated in a way as to mark it as "fringe" I may be more inclined to keep it, given that rare-wildlife is an area of serious biological research. That said an article on Rare wildlife that's known to exist (even if rare) might be more acceptable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't feel strongly about this, but it seems to me, travel to reputedly haunted places and the like is a valid topic, and the article does have some content. ShakespeareFan00, if you don't like the amount of progress, why don't you plunge forward with the changes you'd like to see? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The concern is that the article could become a magnet for cranks as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Cranky edits can be reverted. As for the Cryptozoology article, I think it's fun and the topic isn't treated as if it were science. The only thing that bugs me about it is the title, but we can discuss that at Talk:Cryptozoology. I see that I found the name OK when it was a change from "Cryptobiological travel". Anyway, if you have a better suggestion, that talk page is the place to make it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ikan. Powers (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rhône[edit]

An article on the department containing all of one destination article and two redlinks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. I hate to keep coming up on the opposite side of the argument from you, but Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting is fairly clear that for places like this department a redirect (or similar solution) should be the first option, and deletion is basically a last resort. In this case, if there really isn't a good reason to have this article then redirect it to Rhône-Alpes or whatever is appropriate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles for other departments (areas of local government, well recognised on the ground), and I don't think that it is helpful for the reader for this to be a redirect (to Lyon or Rhône-Alpes). The article could be greatly improved by translating the content of the French version of this article. AlasdairW (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. It's part of the hierarchy, and its removal would leave a gap in geographical coverage. Even a redirect to its parent region would leave us with no place to put the destinations this department contains. Powers (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Expand or Merge. Some of the Rhône-Alpes sub-regions are sparse of data. Would however be good to have a map of the current region split before making an informed decision. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think the regions are simply the departments, which is an administrative division that should be available in map form somewhere. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Here's a map: http://www.wineandvinesearch.com/france/rhone_alps_map.png -- I note that administratively, Rhone-Alpes was combined with Auvergne earlier this year, which is a bit awkward for our purposes because they're in different regions of France in our hierarchy. Powers (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Perhaps we should discuss combining them into one region of France in our hierarchy, though I'm guessing the best place for that discussion would be Talk:France. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)