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. 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

June 2017[edit]

Urbex[edit]

I am bringing this topic to VFD, because I am not convinced that this should be part of a responsible travel guide.

Recently the illegal activities policy was updated, to cover things like trespassing. Based on the current wording and focus of the Urbex article, I'm not convinced it could stay within that policy without a lot of effort.

Also, every single person I've had contact with in the UK, that has what might be termed a professional or academic interest (like architectural history, industrial archeology etc) in otherwise prohibited sites ( or at best off-limits) is that you get permission and the advice of operators/owners before doing anything else, not least so that there's appropriate trust between owners/operators, but so that technical expertise can be shared. This and the role of the countless organized groups that have spent many years building up appropriate procedures for tours of otherwise off limits locations, is not reflected in the current article at all.

I appreciate that the Urbex article has a rather long Stay Safe section, but for some 'off-limits' destinations, more than just reasonable footwear would be needed. I have had someone that did building investigations comment that in a particular abandoned industrial buildings, they had to have not only reasonable footwear (work boots), but overalls, hard hats, dust masks (due to pigeon droppings) as well. Knowing what's needed for any given site, is the sort of expertise that is ONLY known by site operators/owners or specialist groups that have visited similar sites before. There is also the possibility of encountering materials, which were widley used before their risks were fully understood (Asbestos, lead paint, boiler/furnace insulation, being amongst them.). Again site operators/owners are the best to advise potential visitors on such risks.

Whilst I am not opposed to a travel guide including some more unusual destinations,(Wikivoyage for example does include former bunkers amongst it's See listings), I'm still convinced an article like Urbex needs a fundamental rethink, and shift in emphasis to sites which can be definitely be visited legally, be it with permission, or as part of organized tours, over giving inadvertent publicity to so termed "infiltration" which in many jurisdictions whilst not a crime in all circumstances, is still regarded as "not the done thing" culturally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd sooner see it rewritten than deleted, but I am not about to take on that task. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
When this came up before, I suggested that at least the section on infiltration needed to be deleted. I agree that this article needs major editing, but I'm not sure it has to be deleted in full. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the bit on infiltration needs to be rewritten to remove the whole off-topic "sneaking into otherwise-open venues without paying" aspect, there's a huge difference between proposing a change to the wording of one section vs. deleting an entire article. If there's a need to contact the owners of an abandoned property, don protective gear, whatever... say so. That doesn't mean the main topic itself is invalid. I don't believe the recent edit to the illegal activities policy was intended to serve as a pretext for a VfD nom of Urbex. If it was, then there should've been some discussion before changing the policy page - and there was none. K7L (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep But with a major rewrite to keep it legal, safe and compliant. --Walkden861 (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems strangely written and the focus appears more philosophical than practical, maybe it should be donated to the vagabonding wiki and removed from here. It can't be good when the whole focus of an article is borderline illegal to begin with, it goes far beyond a note like "you can jump the fence". What is proposed here is unsafe in general and if such a long caution about safety is required I don't think we should be advocating it at allWillthewanderer (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What vagabonding wiki? I did some Googling without turning it up. Pashley (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy with an Abandoned sites or Old buildings topic, provided that the genuinely legal ways of exploring them were given rather than the borderline tactics associated with Urbex. I however note that we already have Ghost towns, Urban rail adventures, Underground works, Architecture travel topics, and perhaps some of the comments about legally accessing "abandoned" sites would be best placed in those articles rather than an Ubrex one. I will also note that Buildings archaeology is a valid field, and there will be travellers with a genuine interest in old (and not so old) buildings. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Fringe phenomena[edit]

Per some comments made at the pub recently about "useless" outlines.

I am of the view that given the lack of interest, this isn't going to be sustainable in it's current form. If there's anything useful it can be merged, but otherwise given the concerns expressed in the previous VfD this can't be sustained as it's own topic.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It was retained by consensus, against my own feelings at the time ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the page name will draw those interested. I'd say keep but think about a better page title. PsamatheM (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep since it survived a nomination a few months back. It should not have been nominated again unless something important has changed & checking page history I see no sign of that. I'm a little mysitified here since the nominator seems to have contributed fairly extensively to the article.
For this & several of the following ones, see also discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Short_.22useless.22_articles. Pashley (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
At times I get the impression I'm the ONLY contributor, but another contributor has taken up the challange of expanding this. so
Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Halloween[edit]

Created in good faith, but per some comments on the pub recently, and as I seem to be the majority contributor to this, not convinced it's sustainable as a distinct travel topic. Anything useful could be merged (but it's mostly seasonal anyway).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I think that Halloween is a sufficient event in the US and the UK to have an article. However this article could be greatly improved - it is lacking the full Understand that would explain Halloween to somebody who has never heard of it (I don't think that it observed worldwide), and explain the differences between the UK and US traditions. AlasdairW (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Miniatures, dioramas and scale models[edit]

Created in good faith, but lack of activity suggests there isn't the interest to sustain this as a separate topic. Anything useful could be merged and this deleted per recent comments on the pub about "useless" stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - is a topic that could attract interest from new readers, but does need expanding. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reenactment and LARP[edit]

Given the slow progress on this, I'm not convinced there's enough for it to be sustainable as it's own article, given recent comments about "useless" stubs and outlines in the pub. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

By comparison, Pioneer villages and Open air museums, seems to have much more content. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to see this lumped into pioneer villages as that article addresses a deliberately narrow topic – open-air living historical museums covering a colonial time period just before the steam era. Re-enactment is used by many venues that aren't museums or constructed to depict entire villages, such as individual fortresses or simple annual events celebrating some historic date (such as a nation's birthday). K7L (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the article does no harm, and it could develop into something worthwhile. Some discussion on what it should include would be useful for getting others to participate. It is of course easy to include events, but my experience is that such lists easily get many listings from a specific area, while major events are missing from anywhere else. It is much more easy to get a balanced list if there is some indication on intended scope. --LPfi (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Cryptozoology[edit]

Whilst this article was almost certainly created in good faith, I am not convinced based on recent comments in the pub , and previous VfD on a related article, that this is sustainable as it's own article.

By all means legends about supposed cryptids could be mentioned where relevant in region/city articles, I am not sure they are of sufficient general interest to merit their own article, and there have been concerns expressed recently about "useless" stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's a topic that could attract interest from new readers. Also, I know from personal experience that cryptids motivate travel; I myself visited West Virginia solely for Mothman-- PoetOfSaiMiHunManKal (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Are you really going to drive past Loch Ness and not take a peek? Cryptids also add to the culture of the local area, even if they turn out not to be real. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Snowball clause time? Withdrawn

Villarreal[edit]

No information, other than a location data and a banner. Are such blank articles really useful, per recent comments at the pub about "useless" stubs and outlines? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy keep. No matter how many times the issue gets brought up in the pub, it remains the case that lack of content is not a valid rationale for deletion of an article that otherwise fulfills the requirements of wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The article was created less than a month ago, presumably with the intention of adding more content. There are a number of POIs, and it is a good-sized town. –StellarD (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry, this one was my bad. I did intend to add content and got distracted. It is a good sized town however. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn, Plunge Forward! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wadduwa[edit]

Are articles like this really useful, content here could be merged to the parent surely? (Nom per comments recently expressed at the pub about "useless" stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy keep for the same reason as Villarreal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Plunge forward! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Arsikere[edit]

Are short outlines like this really useful? Nom per comments at pub about useless stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - needs expanding as a number of places to visit in the area, good sized place with no other article in the area. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep for the same reason as Villarreal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This article actually has a reasonable amount of content (probably not written by someone whose first language was English but that's another matter). It has one sentence on how to get in, one sentence on how to get around, one sight, one restaurant and one lodging place. Deleting it and starting over would take more time and effort than expanding what is already here. I haven't formed an opinion yet on Villarreal which has zero information apart from its location. Gizza (roam) 01:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Plunge forward! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Springfield (Vermont)[edit]

Other than the Simpsons connection which could be noted in the relevant travel topic, there's not much in this article. Is such a stubby outline really useful? Nom per the comments made on the pub recently about "useless" stubs/outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Expand - is a good sized place, with a couple of POIs. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep for the same reason as Villarreal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
D'oh! -- K7L (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Article was massively expanded by User:K7L, after the VFD nomination. Can be speedy kept. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)