Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2018

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
July 2018 Votes for deletion archives for August 2018 (current) September 2018

Mar Mattai[edit]

This article created by Libertarianmoderate is about a monastery, not a destination, the closest of which is Mosul. Gizza (roam) 13:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already redirected to Mosul. Shall we speedily close this nomination as resolved? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes speedy close. Gizza (roam) 00:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Delete, with a possibility of a speedy delete. Oh please! No-one is going to be seriously doing a search on that term. Let's please delete this and not create these kinds of redirects again. They're silly at best and inflammatory and offensive, if not downright racist, at worst. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedy. If the nickname is in common use then it might be mentioned in one of the London district description. However in general terms like this or Hongcouver (which is used by at least one major newspaper; see link) should be ignored or briefly mentioned in text if they are common. Search will find them if mentioned so a redirect is not needed. Pashley (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it, as there's no reason at all for this discussion to take place. It's clearly not relevant to WV. I'll talk to LibMod too. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: speedily deleted. Selfie City (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina to London overland[edit]

Recently, Libertarianmoderate created an itinerary with the name "Argentina to London overland". He moved to the new title "Argentina to London" but when he moved the page the original title became a redirect. I'm proposing to delete the redirect, not the itinerary. The reason we should delete the redirect title is simple: it's impossible to go from Argentina to London overland, so why would anyone type it in as a redirect? Selfie City (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an argument for keeping the redirect: the article says it's based on a video with the name "Could You Drive From Argentina to London". But it doesn't seem like much of an argument for keeping, since there's the channel tunnel, which isn't on land, of course. Selfie City (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Please check where Argentina is relative to London. The Channel Tunnel is irrelevant! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ikan Kekek: if you went overland as much as possible from Argentina, going overall in a northwesterly direction. Selfie City (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that there's an ocean to traverse? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think LibMod is going to write the article going northwest around the globe — he's written it to Central America so far, not across the ocean. Selfie City (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to explain how the Chunnel is relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This ought to be simple: the traveler goes from South America to North America, crosses over to Asia, goes across Asia and Europe to northern France, and then must cross over to England to reach London. Selfie City (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I don't understand the reason for that route, nor why this should be an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the Bering Land Bridge between Alaska and Russia is currently out of service, and there is no indication of when the link will be restored. The bridge was submerged 11,000 years ago, and there does not appear to be any regular ferry service. This is not a practical itinerary. Ground Zero (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are other possibilities, Ground Zero. For example, you could go a little farther south and get across the northern part of the Pacific by boat. Or by sled in wintertime. But at the same time, traveling from Argentina to London does seem like getting from one random destination to another, which isn't the purpose of itineraries. I'm not sure a video about it justifies an itinerary. But that would, of course, be a separate nomination for deletion, deleting the itinerary, which I clearly stated was not the purpose of this one. Selfie City (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's impossible to get from Argentina to London overland (unless we're talking London, Ontario, but even then, there's the Darien Gap in the way), this is a no-good title, at the very least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are different opinions whether "overland" includes boats. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ikan Kekek: exactly, reason to delete it. Selfie City (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Hobbitschuster? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted. Selfie City (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina to London[edit]

I decided that I don't want to do this itinerary article after all. Would someone mind deleting it? Libertarianmoderate (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to Around the World in Eighty Days for now, and an admin can delete if you want. Selfie City (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted now. Selfie City (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: speedily deleted. Selfie City (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crypto Spam[edit]

I just found this page -- -- and it's an ad for crypto. I'm new here and I'm sure there's an easier way to delete this kind of obvious spam, but I'm going through the procedure.

Jackklika (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already speedily deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: speedily deleted. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump, George Washington, and other redirects using names[edit]

There's nothing wrong with creating redirects that are fairly obscure, and I've done it myself. But on Wikivoyage, names are different altogether. I really don't see a traveler typing into WV search a term like "Donald Trump" or, even more obscure, a historical US President like "Martin Van Buren" or "Millard Fillmore", which is where this could lead. I think we ought to delete redirects like the ones listed above. Selfie City (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbitschuster, do think this needs to wait the process? Practically right now Libertarianmoderate is adding more Presidential redirects... Selfie City (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done. Not to put too fine a point on it, but between Londonistan, presidents' names, and probably others, Libertarianmoderate really needs to stop creating garbage redirects. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I just thought that the resident's names would be useful redirects. And I apologize for Londonistan. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for the names of every resident of London would get unwieldy very quickly. K7L (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably speedy. Someone searching for, say "Thomas Jefferson" does not need a redirect to find articles that mention him.
Should Presidents of the United States go as well? It seems to me to be mostly out-of-scope for a travel guide. I'd keep it anyway, but what do others think? Pashley (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, no worries, all the name redirects were already deleted by AndreCarrotflower. I'm not so sure about what to do with the travel topic. Selfie City (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to have my doubts about the article. Look at the talk page; the bickering about non-travel-related political issues has begun already. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not sure if it's really very related to a traveler. Why would a traveler go to Trump Hotels, the University of Washington, etc., just because they have the same names as Presidents? The sights like statues of Andrew Jackson can go in American history-related articles. Selfie City (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trump Hotels are actually owned by Trump, are they not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the individual hotels are mostly not directly owned by Herr Drumpf. They're owned by real estate developers who pay the Trump Organisation for the name, or pay to have them run the hotel. The same could likely be said for any of a number of franchised operations. The corporation might own some directly, but on others a franchisee is just paying to use the name, the system of operation and the suppliers. K7L (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunnistan and Shiastan are also IMO ridiculous redirects, as those obscure names could refer to any part of the world largely inhabited by Sunni or Shi'a Muslims, respectively. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Ikan Kekek, sorry, that's not quite what I mean. What I mean in the case of Trump Hotels is this: would someone actually go to a town, see the name "Trump Hotels", take out their printed travel guide article, see the name Trump on the list and think, "I'll go here because it's got the same name as one of the people on the list." Selfie City (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'd be like sending them to a random Ford dealership because the Lincoln motorcar was named for the president. If "named for" someone is the criterion, Lincoln (Nebraska) and Washington (state) in their entirety would be listed just for their presidential names, along with Monrovia (Liberia) for James Monroe. There's also the question of whether to list what is basically a chain as WV:BORING. K7L (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnistan and Shiastan[edit]

  • Delete - could refer to anyplace inhabited by Sunni or Shi'a Muslims, respectively, and the references are obscure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Ikakn Kekek, and not a likely search term. Ground Zero (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no, they refer only to a proposed and hypothetical breaking up of Iraq and Syria into three countries along ethno-religious lines - the third is Kurdistan - as an attempt to put an end to wars in the region. However, since the places do not yet exist, their relevance to travel is tenuous at best. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons described by Ikan Kekek. Selfie City (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedy, You could make a case for having Sunni & Shi'a as redirects to Islam#The_Sunni-Shi'a_split, but I do not think that is needed since anyone who searches for either term will find the Islam article anyway. Pashley (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see we already have Kurdistan as an extra-hierarchical region, & that seem fine to me. Pashley (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Places that don't really exist don't need articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous terms that don't seem to be in common use. Nurg (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 taichung world florida expedition[edit]

Delete. Would someone like to try their hand at turning the kernel of basic info into a "Do" listing in the Taichung article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Xiamen#Trade_fairs we mention the China International Garden Expo which is in a different city each year. Is this an instance of that? Or some separate thing? In either case, would some more general article on major Chinese flower shows be more appropriate than this one-off article?
Or even something on the flower industry in China? Almost every city has a bird & flower market, usually with some interesting tourist trade items as well. Kunming is at an almost tropical latitude but 2000m altitude so it is the "city of eternal spring" & has a huge flower industry with frequent auctions; they export as far as Japan & the Netherlands. Pashley (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but Taichung is in Taiwan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my comments above can be ignored. Pashley (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Do listing to Taichung, and the vfd tag to the article, which was missing. Ground Zero (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Individual events don't get their own articles, and this isn't something like the Olympic games that would be except from the rule. Though the article could possibly be transfered to Wikipedia as it is. The article already has the ref tags and everything. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If someone wants to transfer the article to Wikipedia, they should go ahead. Otherwise, it looks to me like the short "Do" listing now in Taichung is sufficient for a travel guide. Thanks for creating it, Ground Zero. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ikan Kekek expressed a copyvio suspicion on the talk page. I'd not want to move a copyvio to Wikipedia. --LPfi (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a copyvio, then that of course changes everything and the article should just be deleted. Any ideas from where the content could be? I checked the official page (linked from the article) and compared the information of about the logo. That seems to be paraphrased rather than directly copypasted. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would believe it was paraphrased. I wasn't able in a quick web search to find a source of copypasta. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as it's now a Do listing in the Taichung article. Nurg (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ground Zero (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]