Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2012

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← March 2012 Votes for deletion archives for April 2012 (current) May 2012 →
  • Delete all. This is unfortunately rather harsh, but temporary blocks and talk page messages haven't been sufficient to get this user's attention. User has created dozens of orphaned region articles in the past several days that don't follow the Project:Article naming conventions and haven't been discussed. Many duplicate existing regions (example: South Central Asia), and unless we are going to review them one-by-one and redirect appropriately these seem like they will cause unnecessary confusion and duplication with no real benefit. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:42, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Delete all. (WT-en) Jjtk 04:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Is a mass deletion really necessary? The person is learly trying to contribute and working in an area where our coverage is weak. (WT-en) Pashley 02:08, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure what else to do. Attempts to get this user's attention have failed, and as a result we've got around 100 region articles that don't follow the naming conventions, are orphaned, and duplicate existing regions. We can go through them article-by-article and redirect where appropriate, but unless someone is willing to take on that job then a mass delete seems like the only other option. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:19, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
      • Certainly not everything should go. Many of his or her contributions are like this, , helpfully adding the name in the local language and script.
      • Do orphaned region articles actually do any harm? If they are valid names, hence possible search terms, I'd say we should have them even if most should be redirects. If we cannot educate this user and get him or her to create those redirects (which seems to be the case, given the lack of communication) and no-one else wants to leap in and do it (which seems extremely likely), does it do any harm to have those articles in the meanwhile? (WT-en) Pashley 03:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
        • To clarify, I'm only proposing deletion of articles for which this IP is the sole author. If someone wants to redirect each of them appropriately then I withdraw the nomination.
        • To answer your second question, in the past there has been concern that duplicative region articles cause confusion. We no longer have a clear hierarchy and users don't know where content should be placed. Project:Geographical hierarchy#Overlap is the "official" policy on this: "No two regions at the same level of the hierarchy should overlap". Similarly, that guideline notes that when regions are created "Use caution, consensus, and collaboration when possible", something that is not being done in this case. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:12, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Delete all Sandy, over time we will have the trouble with double structures and loads of redundancies. I patrol Pakistan now for a couple of years and always someone starts with the creation of skeletons and leaves them empty. After a while some editors start to promote business in that articles (mostly restaurants and hotels) or question or general structure of Pakistan regions. Usually it gets pretty messy and after lengthy discussions we have skeletons en masse which require loads of time to patrol. The articles are created by an UK IP, so it is not a local who don't understand the system. I agree that same smaller edits like the Urdu phrases do make sense but the article skeletons need to be deleted. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:42, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
P.S. Most of the created skeletons had already been created in August 2010. At this time Globetrotter and Ryan deleted them because they didn't fit or regional article structure. I suspect it is the same editor just with another UK anon IP. Also the user started the typical Kashmir conflict in creating article "Indian administered Kashmir" which indicates his political intentions. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:49, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
For reference see the discussion here: User talk:78.145.44.147 which started the same mess last year. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:55, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
    • Delete new articles Wikivoyage's regions structure struggles to maintain clarity in several cases and this author is certainly not helping. These regional articles with no content are just confusing, e.g. Hyderabad_(district) was created and conflicts with the extant Hyderabad_(Pakistan). Some of this user's edits are helpful and should remain; they are at least worth reviewing. The new sub-regions, however, are not helpful and should go.(WT-en) Travelpleb 02:39, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted all articles for which this IP was the sole contributor. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

See above. This one is just nonsense. I am hoping tagging it will get the user's attention. (WT-en) Pashley 02:11, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete It's just nonsense to create such skeletons. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Keep (for now). This one was tagged VFD by User:(WT-en) Jc8136 but not listed here (probably due to the horrid database problems the site is now experiencing). I don't think there is a justification in the current Project:Deletion policy for removing this one unless it sits at outline status for a year. That said, I've proposed a change to the itinerary article criteria at Project:Itineraries#Tightening the criteria for an itinerary article and would be grateful if others could comment on that proposal (not here though please, this page is for article deletion discussions). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:25, 7 March 2012 (EST)
*Delete Ryan, thank you for this support, the database issues hindered me to add this vfd here. I vfd'ed that article because it is very promotional for certain local business and not really an itinerary. I think a proper article can stay but i think the editor just did it for marketing and one year free marketing is too long. Otherwise all spammers will start itineraries to avoid deletion. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:47, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Newport. See Project:Itineraries#Tightening the criteria for an itinerary article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:16, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete According to our policy that places where you can't sleep, its need to be deleted. (WT-en) Jc8136 11:40, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
    • That's not a policy; it's a rule of thumb designed to distinguish communities (which get articles) from attractions (which do not, usually). Ypacarai is clearly a community, and the fact that its hotel is no longer open doesn't change it from being worthy of an article to being unworthy of one. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:10, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
    • I concur with LtPowers. This is not an attraction, it is a charming community. It would be a shame to remove it, thereby making more people leave it off a road tour around the lake. 190.23.92.124 18:19, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
    • Me too. I'd call it an obvious keep. (WT-en) Pashley 22:43, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Merge/Delete. Seems to be started in good faith by a new poster, but it's simply about a monastery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the normal procedure would be to merge any information about the monastery into an article about the nearest village or town and delete this new article. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 03:18, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Merge/Delete Full agreement to your proposal. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:52, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect per policy. The monastery name is a plausible search term. (WT-en) Pashley 23:23, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect looks like an auspicious move. (WT-en) Travelpleb 23:21, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Kodagu. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:09, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

I think the breaking down of Isaan into sub-regions is unnecessary. I put the following to the Thailand discussion page a few days ago but no one commented, so this may get the ball rolling: Isaan, being an "overlooked part of the country" still has very little content in its sub-region articles. Would it be worth considering removing these subregions? At least until the Isaan article is so brimming with content that it needs to be burst into sub-regions (which is unlikely).

I'm using Northern Isaan as a test case. If it is approved for oblivion, I'll also nominate Central Isaan and Southern Isaan.(WT-en) Travelpleb 05:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Isaan. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Berlin. Has been more than a year at outline status, which per the deletion criteria is enough to subject it to deletion. The content that's there is already in Berlin, so no need to merge, but a redirect (rather than delete) probably makes sense for SEO purposes. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:39, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
  • Agree redirect (WT-en) Travelpleb 23:55, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Berlin. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been more than a year at outline status, which per the deletion criteria is enough to subject it to deletion. There doesn't appear to be any content suitable for merging. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:41, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
  • Agree delete (WT-en) Travelpleb 23:58, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:18, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Redirect to United States. Under the revised Project:Itineraries criteria this should not be a standalone article, and I don't see anything in it to merge. A redirect seems harmless enough as I suspect there is probably some SEO value in keeping this around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to United States of America. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Eastern Europe. This "two months" article covers only days one through three, and I don't see anything in it to merge. A redirect seems harmless enough as I suspect there is probably some SEO value in keeping this around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:53, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Eastern Europe. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:34, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. Itinerary article that remains at outline status (without any content that seems merge-able) after one year, and is thus subject to deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:20, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. There doesn't appear to be anything that needs merging. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:25, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. There might be a sentence or two that could be merged to Lorain County prior to deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:45, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. The pictures may be merge-able, but the text content does not appear to be. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:43, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Several images were moved to appropriate articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:47, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. The pictures may be merge-able, but the text content does not appear to be. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Several images were moved to appropriate articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. The Central Coast (California) region is principally subdivided by county. The Monterey Bay article is a hybrid that stretches across Santa Cruz County and the northern part of Monterey County. Anything about Monterey Bay can be covered just as well by the two county articles, and I see no good reason to duplicate it in a Monterey Bay article. The article just clutters the otherwise tidy subdivision of the Central Coast. (WT-en) Nurg 23:17, 7 January 2012 (EST)
    • And what do you propose we show someone who searches for "Monterey Bay"? (WT-en) LtPowers 15:22, 8 January 2012 (EST)
      • Good point. Ryan's idea is better - make it a redirect. (WT-en) Nurg 04:36, 11 January 2012 (EST)
  • Definitely not a delete - this could conceivably become a redirect, but I think a disambiguation page would make more sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:13, 8 January 2012 (EST)
It is probably another candidate for (WT-en) Texugo's meta-region article --(WT-en) Inas 19:04, 8 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, yet another. Keep (WT-en) Pashley 07:39, 29 January 2012 (EST)
  • So is the consensus that this is going to be Merged into Monterey County and Santa Cruz County and then and redirected? I would support that. It looks pretty close but I'd guess that the greater part of the bay lies in Monterey County, so the redirect should point there.(WT-en) Travelpleb 23:38, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
    Any further comment? I think a disambiguation page makes the most sense since this is a likely search term and there isn't an obvious redirect target, but further comment would be useful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:59, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
    It'd be nice to have something a little more detailed than a bare disambiguation page. After all, "Monterey Bay" is not ambiguous; it's just not in our hierarchy. Call it a "meta-region article" or whatever you want, but a brief discussion of the bay and its surroundings and maybe a map would best serve our readers. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:58, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
    Yes. (WT-en) Pashley 21:30, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
    I should have clarified that I meant "meta-disambiguation" (or whatever we're calling it) rather than just a standard disambiguation page - something similar to Knowledge Corridor. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:35, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
    Looks good. Let's do that.(WT-en) Travelpleb 02:07, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Outcome I've made the page resemble Knowledge Corridor and copied this discussion to its talk page. Is that everything?(WT-en) Travelpleb 00:29, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2012&oldid=2954217"