Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2017

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search


A pointless non-article containing no information whatsoever and given w:Galatas, Troizina unlikely to ever be an article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Seems perfect for conversion to a redirect, no? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
"Galatas is a small mainland town with a high school, medical center, a church, banks and a new seafront plaza... known for its Lemonodasos ("Lemon forest"), a vast orchard of lemon- and other citrus trees, watered by watermills and made famous by author Kosmas Politis in his 1930 novel by the same name."
That's at least two "See" listings already (the waterfront plaza and the citrus grove), and there's likely more where that came from. It seems clear that Galatas can sustain its own article, and the fact that it doesn't yet is no reason to delete or even to redirect. (Redirecting, in particular, is a great way to dissuade editors from adding such content.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This is across a straight from Poros, which looks like it has some listings which belong here, and other information to expand this article. It could be merged into Poros, but I think that it is best not to merge mainland and island places. AlasdairW (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the point of keeping a totally empty article, especially since there haven't been any edits since last year. It's unlikely that the author comes back to improve the article and if somebody wants to create a new article in the future, it can be recreated. Drat70 (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Expand --Traveler100 (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This looks like a perfectly fine article to me. And even if it wasn't, we redirect real places. User:Hobbitschuster, I am formally requesting that you stop nominating articles that cover real destinations for deletion. You've been told of our policy enough times. If you want to change the policy, open up a discussion on it, but don't keep defying it and wasting everyone's time. Powers (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it has been expanded. Otherwise a redirect may have been the best option. Gizza (roam) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: So now it has been expanded thanks to Traveler100, and the verdict for keep is near enough unanimous (given the sole vote for delete was based on the premise the article had been abandoned), can we wrap this up and delete the vfd template? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I was actually about to remove the vfd tagg myself. Do go ahead if you so please. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Consider it done. Because it actually has been done, not because I'm about to do it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Montpelier (disambiguation)[edit]

  • See also discussion at Talk:Montpelier. This disambiguation page is unnecessary because there are only two links that aren't red: Montpelier, which refers to the state capital of Vermont, and Montpellier in France, which is spelled differently. I think a message at the top of the article about the Vermont city that reads something like For the city in France, see Montpellier, and maybe vice versa for the French city, would suffice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I have added such a message to the city in France. However, how large are the redlinking places? At least the US ones are probably listed in the US census, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • None of them have a population over 4,000 (Montpelier, Vermont is roughly twice that, and a state capital besides). I doubt any of them will ever get articles of their own. We can revisit the issue when one does, I suppose, though it seems clear to me that the undisambiguated Montpelier would still direct to the Vermont city in any case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Any reason why Barre-Montpelier are two articles instead of one? Their combined population is only 17,000 or so and they're only seven miles apart. K7L (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Andre on this. Ground Zero (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete Andre's proposal makes sense. Gizza (roam) 02:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)