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).

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

August 2017[edit]

Manendragarh[edit]

This was created here as an (unintentional) copyright violation and now contains no content besides the lede. What good does keeping yet another stubby outline around do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd support deleting and recreating it. The copyright violation about attractions (a waterfall IIRC) is unacceptable, but surely, a listing could be created without directly quoting from somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, when we delete the article, can we keep the talk page? It refers to but doesn't contain copyright violation, and I just copied the lede there to facilitate restoring it when we re-create the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
But the article will likely remain without content for a while, right? Is that something we want to encourage? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't have to. By the way, is this a possible solution? Do admins have the authority to remove the initial creation of an article from its history? I'm thinking that would look too strange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete and recreate if you feel it's necessary, but I'd find it hard to believe that a city of 30,000 would have absolutely nothing worthwhile to See or Do and thus not merit an article per wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But why not delete it and wait until it is "organically" recreated? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you would mean by that, other than having no article for some indeterminate period of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well yes. It would be not an article until someone who is from there and stumbles upon our site or has recently been there or otherwise actually knows a thing about the place creates an article. This empty stub is worse than nothing, as it implies there being something where there's nothing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I wonder—is it possible that having an empty outline encourages contributions more than having no article at all? Rock Hill had no article at all for years until I created it as a pretty barebones outline this February. Within four months, a new editor came along and expanded it into a really useful article with lots of content. The same person has added to lots of other articles about nearby cities as well. I don't know, maybe that editor would have created the Rock Hill article anyway even if I hadn't—but maybe the existence of the outline begging for information encouraged them to start contributing to Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We could always ask. But no, I wouldn't support merely deleting this article and not recreating it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Having an empty outline does not encourage contributions any more than having no article at all – it just deceptively displays a blue link, to give the false impression we already have the destination when we do not. If a page was created as a result of user error, much as if it were created as spam or vandalism, there should be no requirement that it be kept. It can be recreated once we have original content for this destination. K7L (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how you can claim that about empty outlines without evidence. It's just as likely that it does encourage contributions, as it's easier for a newbie to add a single listing to an existing article than to figure out how to create one from scratch. Powers (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, admins can hide the first version as well. I can't give you an example here since I'm not an admin on English Wiktionary, but see the history for this test page. Anyway, I suggest we don't spend too much time debating which solution to take to get rid of it (deletion and recreation or hiding), they're probably equally good. (: /Julle (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Policy is not to delete articles about real places, so this should either be redirected or kept. There has been a lot of previous discussion of what to do with almost empty articles; see Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles. Pashley (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Pashley, what's the policy on articles that were started with plagiarism that has since been deleted but is still in the edit history? That's the issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Any of delete & recreate, or keep & hide the copyvio in history, or redirect appropriately would be fine with me & I think in accordance with policy. Just deleting would not be either. Ignoring the problem & just leaving it as it is also seems tolerable to me, but since there are better choices we might as well pick one of them. Pashley (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
As the one who unwittingly moved the copyvio from Wikipedia and over here I'd prefer to remove it from the history of the article one way or another, if that counts for something. (: /Julle (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate as a redirect seems to be the best option. Ground Zero (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to what, and why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest Bilaspur as the nearest major city, or just to the state article, Chhattisgarh. Ground Zero (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I definitely don't see why we'd want to redirect to the state article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Where do you think it should be redirected? Let's settle this constructively so that the discussion doesn't drag on for another three weeks. We have better things to do than fuss over this one useless article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If the consensus is to redirect, the redirect term should be the nearest place for which there is an article, so if that's Bilaspur, redirect (again, if there's a consensus) to Bilaspur. A redirect to the article for the state seems useless to me; you don't agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Napo River[edit]

Is this allowed per our WV:Bodies of Water policy? You decide! Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The lede is an uncredited copyvio from w:Napo River, but I suppose perhaps it's a small enough percentage of the article that if the rest is not copyvio from somewhere else, the article might not have to be deleted as a whole. However, your question is apt. I doubt this article would be OK unless it's redefined as an itinerary or some kind of region article or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yasuni National Park deserves an article, suggest move to a page of that name. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Searching for "Yasuni" shows the park is already mentioned in several articles. Pashley (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead. Seems like you guys have found the best solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The issue was settled two a weeks ago, but it seems that no-one is willing to do the move, so let's close the discussion, remove the deletion tag, and move on. Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Why are you proposing to remove the deletion tag if the problems mentioned above haven't been dealt with? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
So have done the basics of the move. Could do with a little work on the content though. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Traveler100 for doing the move. This seemed like a discussion that had died, so there was no further use in having the tag hanging around cluttering up the article. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Requested moves[edit]

This page was created in 2015, but it's stillborn: Not a single requested move has ever been made on it. Should we redirect this, and if so, where do we redirect it to? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed. If people knew it existed, it might be useful at some point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I was going to move a guide (per Talk:Baja California#Split), but there's a redirect in they way, I need an admin to take care of it. I looked for a place to get admin help with that, and that's how I found the "Requested moves" page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I read that post. I didn't realize you needed an admin's help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added a link to Wikivoyage:How to rename a page, and it could be redirected to there, but I have a slight preference for keeping it, as such pages exist on other wikis. AlasdairW (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll partly agree. Considering how common "Requested moves" pages on wikis are, this should exist in some form, even if only as a redirect.
But you gave me an idea. "How to rename a page" only gives gives little more then technical information on moving a page. It doesn't really tell you where to go for help if you need an admin's help renaming a page, or where to go if you want people's thoughts on if a page should be renamed. I'm thinking we should put that information on "How to rename a page": Direct people to Requests for comment, and the administrators noticeboard (if we have one), and maybe the Travellers' pub. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
And then, I'm thinking "Requested moves" should be redirected. That page is stillborn, and it's stillborn for a reason. It was created artificiality, and no one knew or cared that it existed. For now: Let RFC serve as our requested move page. And then, once we have enough requested moves that it's worth having a dedicated page, we can a re-create the RM page (and leave a note on the RFC page defecting people to RM). That way, the RM page will be created organically, as a spinoff of RFC. And it will actuality be used! Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I added the note to "How to rename a page". And that gave me an idea for the "Requested moves" page, I turned it into this. Does that look good to everyone? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment . My response to AlasdairW is pretty long, so I'll summarize it here: I added a note to Wikivoyage:How to rename a page, pointing people to RFC if other editors don't respond when they propose a move on the talk page. And I created WV:Move, a redirect pointing to "How to rename a page".
More to the point: I changed "Requested moves" into this, A short page pointing people to RFC. Does this look good to everyone?
Looks OK to me. Pashley (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Kutai National Park[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion & instructions in that template say if you do not think it is a candidate for that, tag it VFD and put a nomination here, so I am doing that.

To me, it seems fairly obviously a speedy keep. Can we please stop nominating real & interesting places, let alone tagging them for speedy deletion! Pashley (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. Gimme a break! At worst, this could be merged and redirected somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
this is how it was created. It should have been deleted back then. Now, I don't know. It still doesn't contain any information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw the history, but the fact that an article lacks information is not per se a reason to delete, rather than merge/redirect, an article about a real place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It could be an article but I really do not like empty pages. So until a good amount of detail is written by someone I think a redirect to a listing one the closest city page is what is needed in this case. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, but a redirect is not a deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This "article" was only created as a place for someone to offload their spam. As I say, at the least we should get rid of the spam in its history. And I would argue that we should wait for it to be created organically instead of leaving an "A is in B" skeleton... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to creation of a real article at some point in the distant future. Normally we do not delete real places, but spam and page creation vandalism are exceptions. We normally shoot spam on sight. K7L (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Outcome redirect made to listing. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect though eventually when someone gets around to it, KNP should have its own article. Gizza (roam) 23:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I still consider this an obvious keep & am upset that a redirect was done without waiting for consensus. I am seriously tempted to revert, but won't. See discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Completely_empty_skeletons. Pashley (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry to upset you but a park article with just full of sections heading and one line of content is just annoying to read. Better to have a listing on the closest city which can be expanded. When the listing gets long and complex then revert the redirect and move the text there. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
As I see it, the "don't delete real places" policy is a good one; this should never have been nominated for deletion, & that applies to many other recent nominations.
Whether to leave an empty skeleton in place or redirect is a judgement call; I generally lean to the former since I think that gives a better chance of eventually getting a decent article, but I understand the aversion to ugly empty pages & agree that in some cases a redirect is the right solution.
What upset me here was the timing; as I see it you redirected before a consensus had been reached. Of course my timing could also be criticized; I inserted a template, geo co-ords & WP link before I even nominated it. Pashley (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bontang. Empty articles just frustrate readers and drive them to look for information elsewhere. If someone adds enough information to the entry at Bontang to warrant shooting it out, it can be split out later. Add the park doesn't have a website, that seems unlikely for now. Ground Zero (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Air travel in Europe[edit]

Created over two months ago as a "trial". Has not significantly grown since then; I deem it at least partially a failed trial. There are no logical targets for merger and a redirect to Europe is decidedly not what I'd want with this, so deletion or keeping and heavily expanding it are the outcomes I'd be happy with. Everything else would be a foul compromise that helps nobody. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support HS makes a good case. Ground Zero (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • But what about a redirect not to Europe but to Europe#By plane? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • That would dump you in the "get in" section. Plus it would leave a lot of links for a "see also" that have since been created blue, which should really be red so that people notice and remove them. Because it's not useful for the traveler to be redirected from the "by plane" section of a random article to the get in by plane section of the Europe article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't such a redirect be useful to the traveler? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but what about Europe#By plane 2, a subsection of "Get around"? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the what links here, I cannot find a single instance where that redirect would make sense. I was hoping that either myself or others would have the time and inspiration to develop this article to something comparable to air travel in the United States or better, but it seems nobody thus far is disagreeing with my assessment that the first two months of existence of this article have not made this hope grow, exactly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how, or whether anyone with the knowledge will find the time & energy to do it, but it seems clear to me there is potential for a worthwhile article here. As a Canadian who has passed through Europe several times, & used trains and a car within it, but never taken a flight within Europe, I would be interested in reading it. Pashley (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
We once had an article with a lot of material in it that got redirected. I have no idea why. The last version I can find is here.
Could some of that be resurrected & put into this article? Pashley (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That article was pretty bad and had a lot of outdated stuff in it, but I might have a look... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)