Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2013

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← March 2013 Votes for deletion archives for April 2013 (current) May 2013 →

Unused price range templates

These templates are unused and appear to be attempts to modify Template:Eatpricerange and Template:Sleeppricerange. They don't seem to serve any useful purpose. LtPowers (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in 2006, have now removed all articles using it. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether or not this article is in scope was raised in the VfD nomination of Padaung.

  • Keep. Rename to something more appropriate, and removing the word people. Suggest Romani culture in Europe. Remove all parts of the text that could be conceived as anything but a exploration of their culture. Retain the pointers to the the museums, etc. --Inas (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Certainly there is information in this article that's useful for travelers, but I think the core question is, does an ethnic group merit its own Wikivoyage article? I think the answer is clearly 'no'.
"Wikivoyage:What is an article? explicitly states that people do not get their own Wikivoyage destination article. If we were to treat Padaung as a travel topic, we might say that WIAA? is ambiguous on whether it passes muster. But it's worth mentioning that according to Travel topics, there is very little precedent for giving an ethnic group its own article, the sole exception being Roma (people); in fact, for the same reasons given here, I would argue in favor of deleting the Roma article too."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so by analogy, would a travel topic on places to visit to learn more about black history in the US fail the wiaa test? I don't think it should. The reason I thought the Padaung article was inappropriate was because it was about the people themselves as spectacle, and also because it was an unnecessary subject for a travel topic, since as I stated, if there is even one museum about the culture of the Kayan (Padaung) people in Myanmar, it can be covered in the relevant destination's article. But travel topics about where to experience the culture and history of a people should be allowed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Nice to see a travel topic article which has something more than just an introduction. But the article's name sounds somehow weird, it's probably copied from Wikipedia. "Roma culture in Europe" would be better. Ypsilon (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I always thought it clear enough that the bit about "people" not getting their own articles at Wikivoyage:What is an article? means articles about individual people, not entire cultures, which are clearly a basis for travel for anyone interested in... culture. Experiencing unfamiliar cultures is one of the most basic reasons for travel—it's the principal reason for me. I don't think this is a good merge candidate, as a section in Europe would seem odd. If moving, I can't fathom why we wouldn't redirect. --Peter Talk 21:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I think a naming scheme for cultural travel topics is desirable. The (people) suffix is fairly ugly? --Inas (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it ugly, but it's also dehumanizing. We don't want people creating articles like Jews with explanations of what they look like, what they do, where you can photograph them, etc. but an article about Jewish Heritage Sites in Europe on the other hand could make a great itinerary. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's the distinction we're looking for. --Inas (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Renamed to Roma culture in Europe. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something worth seeking but should be a listing on another page maybe? Traveler100 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per what is an article, no they won't. They are clearly attractions, and if you wish to make the argument that we should start allowing articles for things like these, this is not the appropriate place to gain consensus for that kind of policy change.Texugo (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this, even? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for whatever reason it's not letting me put the VfD template on the page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not be on Wikipedia not in a travel guide? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It's fun and it isn't hurting anything or anybody. I wouldn't shed a tear if it were deleted, but I wouldn't bother deleting it, and as it stands, I don't see any important reason to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - I know that "merge and delete" doesn't technically exist, but I think the facts that the places in the list have another town as an antipode are fun facts that should be mentioned in those articles, and since they are verifiable facts, there is no need to keep this page for attribution.Texugo (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Any reason why our usual travel topic policy of deleting if it stays an outline for a year shouldn't work? It seems like kind of a cool idea for a topic. --Peter Talk 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have missed what the idea actually is. This is a list of places opposite each other on the globe. Can you explain exactly how it relates to travel? Is the idea you'll visit the place opposite where you are now, or something? --Inas (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a topic, keep as a disambiguation or redirect to Oceania - it's difficult to how this article would be: a) different from the Wikipedia article and b) useful to travelers.
It should mention that: "In the Northern Hemisphere, "the Antipodes" is often used to refer to Australia and New Zealand" because explanations of obscure names for places is perhaps useful to travelers.Travelpleb (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see this as a topic that can "develop" except to add more examples or specify things like "where in North Africa specifically is the Antipodes of each Polynesian island?" I think we should just admit that this will be a list no matter how long we leave it and discuss it as such. I'm not completely against lists, but I'm leaning towards Texugo's proposal of just adding the information to the respective articles and getting rid of this. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting the information in individual pages makes it easy to find the answer to "what place is antipodal to this place?". However, going the other direction (finding a pair of antipodes) is difficult without this page, because very few places have an antipodal point that isn't water. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But is that something a traveller is likely to need or want in planning a vacation? Isn't it more just a curiosity, a bit of trivia for those few places that do happen to have one? Texugo (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my point, this seems like a borderline case (I personally don't have a clear notion of where the article is going), and therefore think we might as well let our 1-year rule be the judge. --Peter Talk 17:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an obsolete policy page that has not received a non-formatting edit since its creation in 2005. Citations to this policy are invariably about the "slippery slope" argument, which is covered at wikipedia:Slippery slope but is not the subject of the current policy page (the page is about not including discussions of books, music or external links in articles). Delete this page since it is confusing to have obsolete/duplicative policy pages - everything covered in this policy page is already covered elsewhere on pages that HAVE been updated in the past eight years. See also Wikivoyage talk:Slippery slopes#This should redirect to Wikipedia, where it was suggested this page just be nominated VFD. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep. It would be useful to have such a page to cite in edit summaries. Policy pages don't often explain the reasoning behind various policies (a user would have to search through the discussion page). A page like this seems like a great place to keep a list of common slippery slopes and explain the reasoning behind them (with a link to the relevant policy). However, the page in its current form would need a complete overhaul. This could be a useful page, but not in its present form. If no one else feels the same way, I wouldn't be against deleting the page. AHeneen (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with AHeneen. This is a policy that's still in effect, and there should still be an article on the subject where information on slippery slopes is centralized in one location (inter alia, as an article to cite in edit summaries and elsewhere, as AHeneen pointed out). Obviously I'd like to see the article overhauled completely, but even failing anything of that nature, I would rather see it remain as is than deleted.
I guess that, technically speaking, this counts as a vote to Keep, albeit with several important caveats.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could Wikivoyage talk:Slippery slopes be used to further explain what is envisioned? I'm not sure I understand what a rewritten page would offer that isn't covered elsewhere, but if there is a hole in our current set of policies that needs filling it should be discussed. That said, I still think the page in its current form is a deletion candidate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There needs to be some formal definition of the scope of the project, but "let's ban X because X, Y, Z are a slippery slope and I don't like Z" is not the way to go about this. Don't like Z? Define the project scope to include X and explicitly exclude Z. K7L (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think K7L actually gives the best argument to keep, We need to as a project be able to include X and explicitly exclude Z. A slippery slope argument is usually a fallacy, and this document helps us draw that line in the sand, and not end up with things vetoed because of unjustified fear of where it may lead us. Yes, we can discuss X & Y and draw the line before Z. That's how I read this document. --Inas (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: In its current form the existing policy just says not to write about books and music, and then adds some outdated info about travel topics and external links, and as such seems (to me) to be a good candidate for deletion. Most citations to this policy have actually been the opposite of what you've mentioned, so as it exists the current page would not seem to merit a keep given your criteria. However, your point about use of "slippery slope" as an argument in discussions is a good one. Would it be an acceptable compromise to get rid of the current outdated "policy" page (which just lists things that might be a slippery slope) and update Wikivoyage:Consensus with a mention of the slippery slope fallacy as something to be avoided in discussions? -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I thought the article was trying say we could draw a line. Yes, we can discuss the best country music to come out of Tamworth, but a list of Golden Guitar winners is out of scope. You shouldn't stop writing about music at a destination just because of the irrational fear we will be come a discography. Similarly, you can't justify including a list of your favourite mp3s for a bus trip just because we include some musical information when relevant. Still the fact that our interpretations are so different highlights the need for some change. I don't mind if it is contained with the Consensus policy, in which case we can just redirect the slippery slopes to there. --Inas (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this could be rewritten (and possibly renamed) to make it clearer that it's not about banning certain topics, but about being circumspect in how we approach certain topics, lest we open the door to items that are clearly out of scope. Its name does mean it's likely to be linked in some cases where w:Slippery slope is meant, but that can be solved without deleting the guidance contained within. LtPowers (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a number of "keep" votes that are calling for a rewrite. Since this VFD is coming up on its two week notice, could those making such an argument clarify whether they want to keep the article as-is? It seems like there may be a need for a separate discussion about the need for a "slippery slope" policy article, but I'm not clear whether those making such a case are in favor of keeping the existing article in its current form. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • *bump* It's been almost two weeks - any further comment? As there isn't a single "keep" vote that isn't conditional upon an article re-write (most of which called for changing that page to cover slippery slopes in general, which is very different from the current page) my inclination would be to say that there isn't a consensus to keep the article as it exists now and close this VFD by deleting the existing page; a separate discussion could then be started about whether we need a policy on slippery slope arguments, and if so what it would look like. However, as the person who started the original VFD discussion my opinion is obviously biased, so I'd be hesitant to delete without further feedback. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think deleting it would somewhat unfairly change the status quo to be biased against re-creation of such an article. Like destination articles, if we decide that there should be an article there, we ought to improve it rather than delete it.Texugo (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My keep vote is not contingent upon an article re-write. It is unreserved. LtPowers (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be kept, even if it isn't changed. It could be marked as "Historical" or something like "This is not a formal policy. Please discuss changes on the talk page." AHeneen (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For avoidance of doubt. I don't think vfd is the way to deal with policy this way. There are numerous policy article that we use, that may not meet the reverse onus here to keep. I disagree with Ryan that this article doesn't say what we want it to say. I think it deals with slippery slopes in a fair way, by saying that we don't let them stop us creating an article at the top, but take care not to end up at the bottom. I accept that there is a reading of the article that is different to mine, and therefore the article needs improvement. The fact that people may link to an article explaining why we shouldn't use slippery slopes that actually says we should, I think is both a nice irony, and reminder of policy. --Inas (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Inas' analysis is correct. Pashley (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a thorough rewrite beyond just a find and replace ("Wikitravel" --> "Wikivoyage") but the underlying points of this policy are certainly still valid. Film at 11 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in particular Inas's comment about policy sats (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second comment. I remain concerned that the majority of the votes to "keep" this page are based in large part on the page title rather than the content of the policy page, meaning that we would retain an official Wikivoyage policy of dubious value. As a compromise, what about Inas's proposed solution: "I don't mind if it is contained with the Consensus policy, in which case we can just redirect the slippery slopes to there". We can add a "Slippery slopes" sub-section to Wikivoyage:Consensus that contains Inas' proposed text:
    We need to as a project be able to include X and explicitly exclude Z. A w:slippery slope argument ("X" leads to "Y" which leads to "Z", therefore "X" leads to "Z") is usually a fallacy, and so we do not want to end up with things vetoed because of unjustified fear of where it may lead us. Yes, we can discuss X & Y and draw the line before Z. For example, we can discuss the best country music to come out of Tamworth, but a list of Golden Guitar winners is out of scope. You shouldn't stop writing about music at a destination just because of the irrational fear we will be come a discography. Similarly, you can't justify including a list of your favourite mp3s for a bus trip just because we include some musical information when relevant.
The slippery slopes page would then become a redirect to that section, which would allow the title to be cited in edit summaries and provide some guidance on the subject, without keeping an article that contains questionable policy information. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

The discussion period for this VfD has now lasted well over two weeks, and deliberations have slowed to a crawl. I think Ryan's proposal, detailed immediately above this section, is a good one. Let's keep this discussion active for a few more days so interested parties can weigh in, but absent any huge objections, I'd like to assume that consensus agrees with Ryan and proceed accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as questionable version in 2006. Traveler100 (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was suggested at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Admin request; Double redirect, as something like this would not normally be in MediaWiki: space. Nurg (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suburb with no useful travel information. Traveler100 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly somewhere you would want to visit. Traveler100 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this - in the UK motorway service stations can only be accessed from the motorway, and are often not near a town. Also they are usually not used by people visiting the town. See and for an example on the M5 . A good article on a motorway would also list towns that are near the motorway for alternative eat and sleep possibilities. AlasdairW (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made some attempts at expanding. Maybe merge with other itineraries if the VFD fails. Normsdale (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as other recently deleted highway article and same as any random interstate in the states, we don't build articles for roads, instead preferring to put relevant information in the nearest destination articles. Texugo (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and seriously hope that the UK motorway drama from enwiki does not come here. --Rschen7754 19:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I created the topic in good faith, no road rage required. Also I am well travelled and know most of the landmarks in Bristol and surrounding areas. you will have to OTHERSTUFF The M4,A38 and M32 into this debate I'm afraid, since I use those roads regularly. I haven't created any more road related articles yet. 82.14.248.35 19:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to make an argument for this article as an itinerary, you need to put a lot more content into it. I don't have a problem with an article about a motorway as an itinerary, but the article currently is a stub, not an itinerary. I'd suggest giving you a week to insert content and then deleting the article if you have not done so. Would others be willing to wait a week? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more than fair. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current condition. I know nothing about motorway dramas or about this particular road, but if this is indeed used as a holiday route, I agree with Alasdair that it might be turned into a viable itinerary. Of course that would require expanding the article to something usable for a traveller, and something showing why this is not just any random motorway. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Being a "holiday route" is still not justification for an article if that just means "a road used by people to reach their holiday destination". To really qualify for an itinerary article, it should really be a highway that one would take for the sake of the highway itself, like Route 66 or the Dalton Highway. I don't think this highway qualifies in that respect. Texugo (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a candidate for the Land's End to John o'Groats route, and all roads involved on that one. 82.14.248.35 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well. to clarify, I don't know this route and from the current content can't judge if it would qualify. However, I could see a valid travel topic in a holiday route even if it's not a destination in itself. I think of something like the "Route du Soleil". I don't think anyone would take it just to take it, but I know several people who use it as a slow route to make their annual summer trip to the South of France (a highly popular destination for Dutch tourists), stopping regularly and often once or twice overnight along the highway or in villages just next to it. Again, no idea if this M5 has the same kind of status and use for travellers though, and in current condition (with no content) I too see no reason to keep it. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To address the IP contributor's remark regarding a policy on roads in a way that I hope is definitive: we already have a very clear policy on roads. Wikivoyage:What is an article? lists streets, roads, and transportation systems as a specific example of topics that are out of scope and not eligible to have their own articles. Any discussion regarding changing that policy belongs on Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?, with the fair warning that any such initiative will likely face what can be charitably described as an uphill battle. If Eddie spotting is the rationale for M5 as a destination in itself, that information belongs in Eddie spotting in the United Kingdom, or something along those lines. Wiaa? also makes provisions for tourist itineraries as travel topics, where the subject of the article is understood to be a set of attractions that are geographically oriented to each other and perhaps related thematically, rather than the road per se. If you want to make a case for M5 as an itinerary, the article would still have to be given a new title and rewritten basically from the ground up. In my estimation, there is no substantive difference between doing that and simply deleting the article and beginning again - and because it's dubious at best whether the work of rewriting the article to conform with Wiaa? will ever actually be done by anyone, in my view the answer to whether or not to delete this article could scarcely be more obvious. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Birmingham to Exeter by road would be a valid itinerary if there's anything particularly notable, but it would need to be a generalised town-by-town description of what there is to see and do on the way and not a Wikipedia-style list of off-ramps, milestones, major intersections and dates of construction. Windsor-Quebec corridor was a page "given a new title and rewritten basically from the ground up" in this manner. K7L (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment The stub article that currently exists should be deleted according to current policy. However, I think writing articles about particular routes—providing info like service stations, restaurants, and interesting sights/attractions along the way— can be useful for travelers. I wrote the article Interstate 4 on that "other" wiki that shall not be named (it's been deleted here), as an example (although I never fully developed it). I even started the Routes Expedition to start work on this (but I created the page before gathering community support, so it never got far). Unfortunately no one else saw the utility in having such articles, although the idea was floated soon afterwards for routeboxes and attention was diverted to developing & implementing the routebox template. The idea of creating pages for routes is worth bringing up in the Pub or Wikivoyage talk:What is an article. There was some good feedback/ideas floated at Talk:Interstate 4 and Wikivoyage talk:Routes Expedition. AHeneen (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that those pages have been preserved on Wikivoyage: Wikivoyage talk:Routes Expedition/Interstate 4 & Talk:Interstate 4. --Peter Talk 12:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Motorways are generally not something you want to visit, but for a traveller they are important for getting to places. Information on where the road goes I do not think is of value, this can be got from a map or navi if you do not have a good knowledge of the country. What would be useful are the specific up to date information that is not easy to extract from other sources. Things like what eating facilities are at service stations and off which junctions can you find a petrol station or supermarket. For me driving in the UK I want to know which service stations have a M&S to get some sandwiches, or off which exists I can find a large Tesco for a cooked breakfast, or there is an ASDA with cheap fuel. For those business travellers with company fuel cards a list of brands of petrol stations off exits would be useful. Also where close to the route you can find a pub with good food would be handy. That a road goes from A to B passing near C really does not add any value. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this then something that's worth re-visiting in wiaa? --Nick (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing for the creation of articles for highways, with the exception of routes of special interest to tourists such as Route 66 or the Dalton Highway (as Texugo mentioned), is a can of worms I'd prefer not to open. Furthermore, there's no need for it. Restaurants, supermarkets and gas stations that can be found on the exits to the M5 can just as easily be placed in the article for the respective town where they're located—and it's not like it's difficult for those who drive down a major expressway to figure out what town they're in; all they have to do is keep track of the signs.
Ikan Kekek proposed giving the original author a week to bring the article up to a status where we could justify removing the vfd tag. That was exactly a week ago, and the progress thus far has been, to put it charitably, disappointing.
Per our deletion policy, no action can be taken on deleting this article until 18th April. So, the original author still has time to salvage the article if he really gets cracking on it. Sadly (or fortunately, depending on one's opinion), it's going to take a Herculean effort to elevate this out of a status where it clearly needs to be deleted.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have plenty of great articles on the English Wikipedia as well about roads... </plug> --Rschen7754 02:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added basic info on all the service stations, for places to eat and sleep, and some other info. The article clearly needs further work: route details and tips on when not to travel to avoid congestion, places to eat off the motorway including ASDAs etc, and reviews of the service stations. But we are in the catch 22 situation - content won't get added while it is listed for deletion, but without extra content this borderline article cannot show its value. Other roads should generally be left to Wikipedia, which has a separate article on each service station, but Motorways could be an exception where we can help the traveller. AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If a few clusters of fast food joints and a few hotels which could probably otherwise be listed in city articles is enough for us to keep this, it would still, in my opinion, represent a change in policy or our interpretation thereof. Most US federal highways, many state highways and virtually every interstate highway in the US could pass this bar, yet we have repeatedly, and even recently, deleted such articles. As mentioned, this highway is not famous in its own right like the Dalton Highway or Route 66 - for me, the "if someone is willing to put in the effort keep, otherwise delete" criteria is not really acceptable for just any and every random highway article someone decides to make an article for. I think treating this article and similar articles that way will just end us up with an assortment of highway articles which are all random "exceptions" to our fairly clear policy of not writing about highways. What we apparently need to do is revisit whether we want articles for plain ol' highways, but that would be a matter of policy change, not vfd. I still think current policy was made to avoid this very type of article, and for what it's worth, I wouldn't support a change either, per AndreCarrotflower's argument above. Texugo (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like it could go on for a bit, so what if we put it on a sort of 'probation'. We remove the vfd banner temporarily (or at least move it to the talk page) to counter the problem highlighted by AlasdairW above and give the article 2 further weeks to improve. If, at the end of that period, the article either does not fit within any existing policy, or is not such a masterpiece that it demands reconsideration, we delete the article. --Nick (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I think that's a good temporary measure. At this point, I'm inclined to change my vote to Keep, but I'm not sure I'm on solid policy grounds. I don't see the harm in allowing for further development of the article before a final decision is made, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, unless and until we modify our policy on roads, the question of whether to delete or keep this article hinges on the question of whether the author (or anyone else) can argue that the M5 per se is of interest to travelers, as the Dalton Highway or Route 66 are. I'd say the chances of that case being made successfully are roughly equal to the chances of a case being successfully made that the New Jersey Turnpike per se is of interest to travelers. I'm willing to wait the extra two weeks, but quite frankly, at the risk of poisoning the well, no matter how much content is added to it I hold out virtually no hope for this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Really guys? The policy is pretty clear to me:
wiaa - What should not get its own article? ...transport systems...
wycsi - use routeboxes or, "In rare instances, famous highways or rail lines may also serve as a basis for cross-country itineraries."
Since the vfd page is where we apply policy rather than debate it, unless anyone actually has an argument that this is a "rare instance" of a "famous highway" in a way that every US Interstate and hundreds of other highways are not, our policy's clear answer is to delete this. You are welcome to move it to a user page and reopen a discussion elsewhere on allowing these, but no matter how much work is put into this article, I don't think it will ever magically start qualifying for an article under current policy. Texugo (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you're probably right. By suggesting the above I was trying to be fair, but if I'm completely honest, the M5 is not renowned even here, in Britain - it is just a, another road. Realistically, there are far more deserving thoroughfares in this country and, whilst it is used by a number of holidaymakers, so is the air above the Atlantic and we don't have an article on that. It is perhaps useful for a minority of travellers, but it really is a minority who probably are already catered for by traffic websites and the signs on the motorway itself. Having had a play myself, I can't say that I think its particularly compatible with our current policies. Perhaps that will change in the future but, for the moment at least, we'd probably be better focussing our efforts elsewhere: delete. --Nick (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a motorway and not any sort of attraction in itself. I could support a move of the content into a "Driving in Britain" article if there would be one. Ypsilon (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair - what if we move it to 'Driving/Motoring in the United Kingdom' and then pad it out and move in content from other areas? --Nick (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the type of content contained in that type of article; see the articles for Driving in Australia, China, New Zealand, Sweden, Mexico, France, Brazil and... the UK - that article already exists too. Do we really want to start listing fast food joints in these? Texugo (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - Delete --Nick (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or no?

The prescribed discussion period has ended as of today, and action can now be taken on this article. Consensus seems to be trending strongly toward the idea that this article is a hopeless case no matter what. Shall I delete it immediately, or do we still want to allow another 14 days for the author to make his case, as Nick suggested? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now happy to rescind that comment, unless anyone else wants to take up this article. Feel free to delete it. --Nick (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I'll wait till the end of the day to give others a chance to jump in; failing any eleventh-hour support for the alternative, I'll delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think policy is clear. If someone wants to rescue this, they can move it to their userspace, and then start a discussion to change the policy. --Peter Talk 20:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't followed this discussion, but in general if there is confusion about what to do with an article that may or may not fall outside of Wikivoyage norms I'd rather see it initially tagged as {{experimental}} rather than VFD. That gives the original author time to demonstrate what they're trying to do, rather than chasing them off with a VFD. If the experiment isn't completed, or if people eventually decide it isn't suitable for Wikivoyage, at least we've given it a chance without chasing off a potentially well-meaning contributor. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that it clearly does fall outside of Wikivoyage norms, being explicitly discouraged by policy and being of a type of article that has been deleted many times in the past. Must we go through that "experimental" see-if-it-can-be-developed thing every time someone decides to create an article for a plain old highway? Texugo (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even in light of what Ryan said above, I think the default still goes to Peter's suggestion (for the author of this article to move the material into his userspace). The author is obviously watching this discussion, as evidenced by the fact that he's put a considerable degree of work in to filling out the article since Ikan put forth the one-week ultimatum (though, by way of retconning my previous "disappointing progress" remark, not nearly enough). If he truly wants to salvage his work, he's got a few hours left to move it into his userspace. If he doesn't care either way, it'll be deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: Moved. I've 'fostered' the article, so at least for the moment we can put this vfd request to bed. I don't have any plans for the article at all, except perhaps preserving it for the original author or saving it until 2023 when we decide that we want articles on every road in world. Until then I'll probably leave it dormant and see if there's anywhere I could perhaps move some of the info it contains. --Nick (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The red-linked town listed on this page (the only one listed other than Thunder Bay in Ontario) doesn't actually exist. Eco84 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and the redirect Camping korea, appear to have only been created to advertise a website. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted Pashley (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday and the redirect Vacation

I assume we do not want to go down the road of explaining every travel term? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd say speedy since it seems obviously wrong to me, but it is better to leave the nomination here to inform the contributor and give a chance for discussion. Pashley (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a real place in Florida called Holiday I say keep the article for information about the place and merge the dictionary definitions to the relevant phrasebooks. Normsdale (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Normsdales last "keep as an article for the destination", but I don't think it's "embarrassing" that we don't have pages to define what a holiday or vacation are. I dare you to find a printed travel guide with a glossary definition for what a vacation is. It's pretty much a given. Texugo (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone wants to really develop the Florida town article, it looks like a joke to keep it, and we definitely don't need to become an English dictionary. If someone is surfing the English language version of Wikivoyage, then it is assumed that they know English. It's not our responsibility to teach anyone. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP, the Florida town has a population of twenty-odd thousand and is a suburb of Tampa. I'd say redirect to Tampa unless/until someone wants to develop it further. Vacation, just delete. Pashley (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pashley's suggestion is the way to go here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Holiday redirected, Vacation deleted. Pashley (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2013&oldid=4924680"