Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2022

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← November 2022 Votes for deletion archives for December 2022 (current) January 2023 →

Two articles created by User:Kangiy in August that have no phrases and no pronunciation information, just a brief description of where the language is spoken. Kangiy has not participated in Wikivoyage since September. Ground Zero (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted.

As someone who has previously lived in Adelaide, I would say Adelaide Airport does not warrant its own article. It is quite small and easy to navigate, with one terminal serving both domestic and international flights. The number of international flights into Adelaide is quite limited, and really, the only people likely to connect in Adelaide are those headed to the small country towns of South Australia. You typically wouldn't connect through Adelaide to get to Darwin or Cairns.

  • I'm open to just deleting it outright to, but my main point is that Adelaide Airport is neither complex enough nor sees enough connecting traffic to warrant having its own article. Covering it in the Adelaide article will suffice. The dog2 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it make sense to delete a reasonable search term? We are going to have information about this airport in Adelaide, anyway. Same comment on the other airport. Although articles about real places can now be deleted for really compelling reasons, there is no good reason to eliminate these search terms. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: merged and redirected to Adelaide#By plane. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to changing my view on this one since I've never been to Fiji, but I doubt it is complex enough to warrant its own article. Sure, Nadi may be the main hub for the Pacific islands, but it's still probably rather small compared to airports we would think should get their own articles. The dog2 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: merged and redirected to Nadi#By plane. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barely any content, eligible per the one-year rule, and what more, the article doesn't even meet the criteria for outline (despite the erroneous tag). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you know where my standpoint is with low-quality itinerary articles like this one. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think it should be deleted. The little content that's in the article as of Dec 4 is just an inferior version of w:en:March of the Living. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like you're suggesting that information about the March of the Living should be added to the Auschwitz article from Wikipedia. But the thing is, the March of the Living is a well-known event and a reasonable search term. Therefore, deletion doesn't seem the best course of action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to Auschwitz-Birkenau#Events. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the talk page for reference, but this really isn't an itinerary at all and therefore fails WV:WIAA. For a bit of context, this itinerary is basically a direct flight with no layovers from Kano to Ibadan, and the understand section is unlikely to be the work of Nelospecial. It's like having an itinerary article on flying between Toronto and Montreal, Sydney to Melbourne, or Moscow to St Petersburg: all are direct flights with no layovers and nothing unique to see on the way and therefore not a valid itinerary article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted.

Fails to pass the Wikivoyage:Bodies of water policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reached out to the author to ask if they are planning to expand the article into an itinerary or travel topic that would be permitted under Wikivoyage:Bodies of water. Let's put this on hold to wait for a response. Ground Zero (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it fails the guideline: it is a park article and supposedly covers also the area around the lake. The problem is that it lacks content: there is a Wikipedia-like Understand and an all too general Stay safe. The other sections should be filled in to get it to usable status. If the "a couple of attractions" part poses a problem, just use the See and Do sections (or a See and do) to describe why the park is worth visiting and what people usually do on their visit, somebody else may be able to put in proper listings, at least if there is contact information for a visitor centre. I note that the user has created several similar articles recently, the advice applies to them too, and I hope they can be expanded before long (but the articles were created less than two weeks ago). –LPfi (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reasoning could be applied to any body of water, which would mean that the Wikivoyage:Bodies of water policy has no effect. I don't think we want articles that describe a body of water the way an encyclopedia article does. If there were travel content, then it would be justified as an itinerary, park or travel topic. But there isn't. Ground Zero (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not any body of water. We have extraregions such as Saimaa and Lake Geneva, and this is a park article like Bothnian Sea National Park. The article should not have its scope defined by the shores and if it hasn't, it's not about the lake but on an area that happens to include and be named after a lake. You don't have to start with the Sleep listings to pass the sleep test; this is classified as a park article and it will be a park article when the empty sections have been filled out. The article can be nominated later if it isn't developed (or rather: redirected to the nearest town). –LPfi (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a park? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It uses the park template and says "It is surrounded by a number of protected areas, including the Lake Burullus Fish Reserve and the Lake Burullus Protected Area. [...] a popular destination for birdwatching and other forms of ecotourism". –LPfi (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed on Nationalparks.Africa as a "protected area stretching over 460 square kilometers," but that's not an official site. It might be appropriate to have a park article about it, if it can be developed as such. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lake Burullus is listed in meta:Explore_Africa/Article_Suggestions#National_Parks_and_Game_Reserves, as one of the suggested articles in the Explore Africa competition. It is one of 30 w:Egyptian Protectorates. AlasdairW (talk) The preceding comment was dated on December 16, 2022, 23:40 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it has been created as a stub, so now participants will have no interest in developing it. I have been trying to cajole Dnshitobu into expanding the stubs they have created, and led by example by improving many of those stubs to useful articles, but to no avail. The model that "someone else" will improve it sometime has been a failure. What we end up with is a travel guide littered with stubs and non-travel articles like this one. I'm not interested in expanding this article, and if none of the other participants in this discussion are interested, it's not going to happen. See Amish and Mennonites where the bare minimum of information was added to save it from being deleted, and then it was abandoned. The creator moved on to start Billionaires' Social Calendar, another non-article, and those who said "but it might grow" left it as a crappy article. Ground Zero (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And after making edits to Billionaires' Social Calendar for only one day, has now debated another cheaply article, Holy Roman Empire. Sigh. Ground Zero (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That new article isn't even 1.5k bytes, making it the site's second shortest topic article (excluding list articles like equipment), only behind surfing (source). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could merge/redirect this article to Nile for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would also work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good. Alalch E. (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to Nile#Lake Burullus. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article's length should explain it all (and no major edits since Jan 30, 2021). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a potentially useful topic, but if it hasn't gotten any better than this since its creation in 2015, there's no good reason to keep it if it's not significantly improved in two weeks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete'. Agree. I also don't trust the list of locations: is e.g. Toucheng a globally important surf destination or just a place with a beach where some go surfing? Neither article tells. Are the Beach Cities the main surf destination of the United States? Is the list totally arbitrary? Nobody is served by the article in its current state, there is no work done on it, and if somebody is going to write a real article on the topic, this stub doesn't help. –LPfi (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have hope now; the article has improved a lot. I still hope the rest of the listings will be checked and described a bit better. –LPfi (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have concerns about any listings, please plunge forward and check them and add descriptions. Ground Zero (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems they are all fixed now, even if some might be improved. Sorry if it was already done before my post. –LPfi (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —I agree that it was a useless article, but it is one that Wikivoyage should have, so I've starting improving it. Plus, there is a delightful perversity in a Canadian rescuing a surfing article nominated for deletion by an Australian. Next up, I'll write an article on "going walkabout". ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wow, that article has definitely improved (and I do agree about the delightful perversity in that lol) from a useless skeleton to a good usable topic (I'd supporting upgrading the article to usable). Anyway, I withdraw my nomination. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is such an important travel topic that it is hard to understand how the article hasn't developed more over the years. After attention has been drawn to it, and seeing the expansion already done by Ground Zero, I believe that could steadily improve. Alalch E. (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unarchived because 14 days had not elapsed since the nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, we have not discussed whether these threads can be speedily archived due to the nominator withdrawing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought withdrawing nominations was allowed, but you're right: there's no policy on en.voy explicitly allowing this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept. Ground Zero (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2022&oldid=4587547"