Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2015

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← November 2015 Votes for deletion archives for December 2015 (current) January 2016 →

Created by an IP user and reeks of pcv Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure this is pcv, though it's certainly not impossible. At any rate, according to our already-existing article on Port Aransas, Mustang Island is a real place, so deleting this article is out of the question. I vote to redirect, either to Port Aransas or South Barrier Coast. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Mustang Island State Park which was already a red link for the region. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the above redirect as there was no consensus for what should be done with the nominee. Less than one hour of the prescribed 14-day discussion period had elapsed, during which we only had input from two editors. Please read the relevant policy at the top of this page rather than acting unilaterally. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that redirect is a good solution. Pashley (talk)
Maybe the debate is to whether it should have been nominated for deletion. It is a valid place just debatable its need for a specific article and the current content. I understand waiting 14 days to delete some debated page or content but why wait 14 days to fix a problem? --Traveler100 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "fix a problem". I didn't delete Mustang Island State Park - the only thing I undid is that Mustang Island doesn't redirect to it anymore - so the redlink on the region article is no longer an issue regardless. But if the "problem" you refer to is the Mustang Island stub itself, in its current VfD'ed state, then the answer is that Wikivoyage uses consensus to determine the best solution to problems like this, which is the entire point of this page and these nominations. If consensus weren't important to this process, then Hobbitschuster might just as well have fixed the problem himself instead of wasting his time nominating it here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But where do you think it should be redirected to, Ypsi? I think that's the central question we're trying to answer here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe South Barrier Coast? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment; While a redirect is probably fine, I do want to point out that the way this is being handled is quite detrimental to our wishes to expand this community. Slapping a vfd-tag on a new article by a new user within hours, and even suggesting page creation vandalism, for an article that is 1) about a real place that 2) a red link in other articles, should very much be avoided. It would be far more constructive to start a discussion on the talk page and welcome the new user, which no-one did so far. If this had been the way my first (far from perfect but well-intended IP-) edits had been welcomed, I would have been gone for good in a heartbeat. (Fortunately, it was Ryan who told me I was going about it all wrong, without completely discouraging me - and still it took a while for me to come back after my first attempts, and I still remember the slap on the wrist ;-)) ) If this article is redirected, probably the same should be done for Padre Island, and the links to the article should be changed. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Julia is quite correct; we need to improve our ways of dealing with new users.
As for Padre Island, we currently have that plus Padre Island National Seashore & South Padre Island, none of them with much text. We really need only one article. Pashley (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sorry, I am a serial newbie biter, it would appear. Though the history of the page is decidedly weird... Maybe a copvio from the other side that was reverted? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Redirected Pashley (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Nothing was actually contributed. Just the template for the town was added with no content whatsoever. I'm sure people here would not be happy if I created a skeleton article for every 'real place' in China. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and redirect or keep - No, we wouldn't be :-) And most likely, nothing more will happen to the article. Still, I agree with Traveler100 that it's best to be lenient with new editors, just in case. The difficulty is giving some time while not forgetting about such articles... perhaps we should have small list at the bottom of this page for pages that are not up for deletion, but still probably require some action after two weeks :) JuliasTravels (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I changed my mind. Looking a bit further, I think this place can have an article of its own, actually. I'll make a start. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was thinking about the idea of a list of articles needing attention. Been guilty myself of tagging pages for deletion or merging too soon after creation. Was wondering if we should have a tag (template) with a category that highlights articles needing attention with some form of date system on it. Something we can tag when created but then revisit a few weeks later and reassess for delete/redirect/merge. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this --Traveler100 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page may not meet our article criteria. It will be keep for a couple of weeks to allow people to improve it. If the content is not enhanced it will either be deleted or merged and redirected another article. It was last edited on 2016-03-9. Please plunge forward and help it grow! Please direct any opinions to the talk page and gain consensus before removing this tag.

Reason for needing some attention: Needs See and Sleep listings
A tag would be great, since it would remove the need for an impulsive deletion for empty articles that could potentially meet Wiaa criteria. I would change the template above to state that the article requires more general attention than just 'Sleep' and 'See'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this article has been sitting around for quite some time and seems to me to have failed in its original purpose. Given the fact that the market in Africa is even more volatile than elsewhere according to the article itself. I think there was a discussion over at Talk:Low-cost airlines in Europe to throw out the whole "low cost airlines" shtick (us not having articles on companies and stuff) but let's open that can of worms at some other time... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change the scope of Flying to Africa and merge it there (and recycle the banner)? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while, anybody willing to weigh in on this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See above, I thought I actually did this. Will probably not manage to do it anytime soon, so from me it's a go-ahead for merging into flying to Africa of any content worth saving. Whether the target article is worthy of survival is another question at that point of air traffic development. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just redirected this page, please undo if you disagree. Given how little interest this vfd caused, I don't think there is anything of value to our page lost by deleting / redirecting Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to flying to Africa. --Saqib (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As far as I know the uploader can change the license of the picture anytime s/he wishes on Flickr, although, as I understand it, this shouldn't prevent a previously free licensed artwork/text to be reused with a free license, even if the original gets a stricter license later. Which is why there is this whole verification system at Commons, in which someone (mostly a bot) other than the uploader comes around and checks the license of the original upload at Flickr, so even if it gets re-licensed later, it is still okay to use with a free license since you uploaded it during the time window that the image had a free license and someone else verified that.
tl;dr Andre might have uploaded this particular image when it was free licensed, and the image might have got re-licensed later. But, of course, we have no way of knowing this for sure now. Vidimian (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a broken redirect. Searching en:Wikipedia and Google, I was unable to find anything by this name. There are many places called Washington Street Historic District (the target of the redirect), so it is impossible to know which of those was intended. Peter Chastain (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Are you sure you couldn't find anything? A simple Google yielded many results on "Washington Street Historic District" (without the 'National'), albeit in many different place in the United States. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I found. So, the question is whether one of those places is more inherently a "national" historic district than the others. Cumberland (Maryland?) suggests itself, because it is listed in the NPS Register of Historic Places, but so is the one in Middleton, Connecticut. If someone erroneously searches for a place called Washington Street National Historic District, I would prefer to take the person to a search list, rather than deciding one was probably intended. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I now see that the page was deleted on 6 November. Is there some process that should have deleted redirects when the target was deleted? Also, as I am relatively new to WikiVoyage, I'm not familiar with nominating for speedy-delete. Is that also done via VFD? I now see how to use the {{speedy}} tag to speedy-nominate, but I see it's already deleted. Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could be 'merged' into Sydney, except it is missing anything that might populate the details of a listing. I know of two (fake) paddle steamers in Sydney harbour, but not sure if this is referring to them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2015&oldid=2954161"