Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
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.

Nominating[edit]

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, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone.

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 ("~~~~").

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 (UTC)
* '''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 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.
  • When deleting a template, either replace 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. Otherwise, remove the template from all pages that use the template. However, do not delete the template first – this breaks links and will cause a swathe of red links, requiring a lot of cleanups.

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

December 2022[edit]

Articles created by Dnshitobu (talk · contribs)[edit]

I had to speedily delete all but two phrasebooks created by this user as they were all copied verbatim from Wikipedia, with no attempt to even adapt it to Wikivoyage's MoS nor give the relevant attribution (making it a copyvio). For the other two (Abron phrasebook and Jiru phrasebook), I copyedited the ledes so they are not near identical to Wikipedia, but I hold no trust in the other 49 articles being copyvio-free, and we definitely do not want to reward disruptive behaviour here (all these were likely created in order to game the m:Explore Africa contest, which is why these articles were created on a mass-creation spree). It's also worth noting that all these articles are low-quality and deleting these will not result in the removal of useful travel content.

Listing all of them below:

If any of these have been copyedited to the point where it can be kept, please do add a note beside the listed article (e.g., something like "improved by SHB2000 on Dec 8, 2022"), but until then, I do not trust that these are copyvio-free, or have not been copied verbatim from Wikipedia with no attribution provided. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If there is no improvement to these articles over the next two weeks, then we should delete them. On their talk page, Dnshitobu made it clear that they are expecting other people to improve these articles. We know from experience that that approach doesn't work in Wikivoyage: we don't have enough traffic on this site for phrasebook stubs to develop organically. And we can't allow copyright infringement. Ground Zero (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've reviewed all of the articles. There are a few that have no information of practical use for travellers. Most of them, however, follow a simple formula: cut and paste information from Wikipedia, plus 2-5 listings of hotels or restaurants with no information about them except for coordinates, and a map. The intention seems to be to create as many articles as possible, with the minimum effort. But the listings and the map are of some use to travellers, and Africa is a region that is under-served by Wikivoyage. I think we should consider whether we want to delete these. The phrasebooks-without-phrases, though, need some content or they should go. We should also consider whether these editing competitions actually are a benefit to the projects as they are being run. I think their value is questionable. Ground Zero (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete unless they are greatly improved. (Also please can we review m:Explore Africa/Article Suggestions, where some of these are listed.) AlasdairW (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yendi might be developed enough to keep, depending on how much was copied and pasted. The problem is, as you said, we can't trust this user's contributions. Therefore, I agree with you: delete all unless something changes significantly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yendi does not have any text in common with its Wikipedia article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for checking that. We should also do a web search to see if the text comes from anywhere else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek@Ground Zero@SHB2000 I totally understand the angle you all are coming from but instantly deleting all the articles I have created without recourse to time is not appropriate. Imagine I create an article today, hoping to improve it tomorrow then it is deleted, what benefit would you deleting when it could have been improved in the next couple of days or weeks. Giving users the benefit of the doubt is very good in a volunteer space because the efforts people make to contribute is a lot of energy we need to appreciate. Trust me, these articles would not be left the same with time but if you delete them instantly, you have only wasted someones precious time and infringed upon the knowledge sharing we all care about. Dnshitobu (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @User:Dnshitobu, Dnshitobu: your articles are not going to be deleted instantly. The votes-for-deletion process usually takes a couple of weeks, and if there are signs that a user is improving articles, editors will usually allow more time. We'd rather have more useful articles than delete articles. If someone creates a bunch of stubs and shows no sign of being willing to improve them, and no-one else improves them within a couple of weeks, they get deleted.

SHB2000, who nominated these articles noted "If any of these have been copyedited to the point where it can be kept, please do add a note beside the listed article...." In other words, improved articles won't be deleted. I've improved four of them already. I hope you will work on some, too. Don't worry about getting them a done in two weeks: as long as progress is being made, there will be no rush to delete. Ground Zero (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dnshitobu, let's discuss your statement, in particular, "deleting all the articles I have created without recourse to time is not appropriate".
  1. All the articles I speedily deleted were copyvios; copyvios are not allowed on this site, and it is your responsibility to know that (and I'm surprised I have to tell this to a sysop on dagwiki)
  2. I listed the other articles here, and did not speedily delete them, so we can discuss them. That's what VFD is for.
  3. I did not list all your articles for deletion.
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been 15 days. Have we made a decision about these articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's consensus (albeit indirectly) to delete all the articles that have not been improved. I'd wait another day before taking action, though, especially because there would be a COI if I deleted the unimproved articles without waiting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the creator of thes articles appears to be working on them, I am willing to wait another couple of weeks. The competition that these were crated before ends on 31/1/23, so deleting any time next month should avoid points be awarded for empty articles. AlasdairW (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll wait till 22/12/30 as per #Deleting, or not, but am willing to wait longer if needed. The only think that I feel strongly about is that these articles don't count towards the contest. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete some -- those with empty or essentially empty Get in and/or Get around and/or Sleep sections. Keep for now articles that are marked above as improved. The remainder should be nominated again after 3-6 months. Alalch E. (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    it's Jan 1 now, which ones do we delete? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dnshitobu, which articles do you intend to do further work on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ikan Kekek I intend to improve all because the the end of year came with lots of things on my desk. But now that I have cleared most of the pending stuff on my desk, I am getting back to work. Thank you for reaching out. Dnshitobu (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Let's keep this thread open and give Dnshitobu time to do more work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Dnshitobu has made some progress already, as I've noted in the list above. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should remove the VfD tags from the articles that have been improved, and cross them off this list. Ground Zero (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and this could also be done with some of the proposed mergers. AlasdairW (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't that be done after they are merged? Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created by Nelospecial (talk · contribs)[edit]

User has been blocked for three days from editing mainspace and their userspace due to copyright violations; listing all articles they've created for deletion:

Deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They have also created three phrasebooks, too:

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All for deletion? Please Do they all have contain issues of copyright violation? Nelospecial (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nelospecial: Don't know how I missed your comment, but only you can definitely say yes or no to whether these were copied verbatim from somewhere. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Lotheni Nature Reserve. It looks to be copied from [1], although the sentences have been rearranged. There also has been little attempt to create a Wikivoyage article - for example the museum should be a see listing, with opening hours, price address etc, not in Understand. AlasdairW (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep the phrasebooks. I didn't find any evidence of copying in the Oromo phrasebook (the other two don't have much content). Note that the phrasebooks do need to be edited because the translation should not be in brackets - the translation comes before the brackets, which has the pronunciation. AlasdairW (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Delete Hlane National Park as we already have Hlane Royal National Park, which is a better article. I don't think it is worth merging, but I don't object if somebody wants to. I have just updated the useless suggestions to fix this. AlasdairW (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The first two sentences of Hlane National Park are copied and pasted from www.thekingdomofeswatini and Matakataka, respectively. I don't feel like doing more web searching but would simply trust SHB2000 and vote to delete all of these. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If that's the case, should Hlane National Park and Lotheni Nature Reserve be speedily deleted?
    I should clarify that I haven't done an Earwig's search on these articles yet, I've only listed these for deletion because I suspect there is copyvio in some way or another and I don't trust these are copyvio-free. Although Nelospecial committed to never inserting a copyvio again (as part of their unblock appeal), these were all created prior to their block.
    In saying that I'm now unsure if they do or not. Nelospecial seems unsure, at least judging from "Do they all have contain issues of copyright violation?", but User talk:Nelospecial should give a bit more context. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can just redirect Hlane National Park to Hlane Royal National Park. If User:Nelospecial is able to expand the Hlane Royal National Park article, it would become more useful to travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedily deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sokorodji is a neighbourhood within Commune VI of Bamako. It isn't a separate city. There is no need yet to split Bamako into separate districts. Sokorodji should be merged into Bamako. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Coleford Nature Reserve. I have just removed a suggestion in that you should visit The Cyril Hart Arboretum, which is near Coleford in the Forest of Dean, England. So I have little faith that the article is accurate. It also looks to have text copied from [2]. AlasdairW (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we confident that the phrasebooks are accurate? Is your hovercraft full of eels? Ground Zero (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you Nelospecial please check the phrasebooks you have created, make sure everything is correct, and then tell whether the phrasebooks of yours are reliable. You could also tell something about how well you know these languages and whether you have had some native speaker check them, unless you yourself are one. –LPfi (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I conducted an advanced native speaker to examine the Esan phrasebook. But I will check once more for any corrections. Nelospecial (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Nelospecial. Ground Zero (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Banggai_(disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation has no links to extant articles except to Central Sulawesi and Asia. JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC); edited 00:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All red links, so no point to it so far. Ikan Kekek (talk)
  • Delete. disambig pages with only redlinks are not useful. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per JsfasdF252, IK and SHB2000. Ground Zero (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete for now since the page as it stands is utterly useless & there are no Banggai articles to link to.
If someone wants to do the work, there might eventually be several articles; see w:Banggai Islands Regency for a starting point. In that case, a disambig page would be needed. Pashley (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pidgin phrasebook[edit]

Pidgin is a type of language and not a specific language. JsfasdF252 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Tok Pisin phrasebook Pashley (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, move it (without a redirect) to "Nigerian pidgin phrasebook" or "West African pidgin phrasebook". I prefer the latter since the WP article says related dialects are spoken outside Nigeria. Then add a link in Pidgin. Pashley (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Malmesbury (South Africa)[edit]

Abandoned stub since Jan 18. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]