Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2015

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← January 2015 Votes for deletion archives for February 2015 (current) April 2015 →

Started by PrinceGloria in September of last year in support of the proposal at Talk:Berlin#Rebooting_districts, long-since stalled. This has been sitting in the main space since then, duplicating parts of the existing districts of Berlin, and there was never really a reason to have this as an "experimental" article in the main namespace in the first place. Given that the idea was contentious to begin with, the proper thing to do would have been to create this in a user subspace, so I suggest that we should:

Well, technically a "south centre" region exists for any and every city, but is this a subdivision actually recognized in the real world, outside of the proposed WV-only division scheme at hand? If people want to redirect it that's fine I suppose, but the point of having a vfd discussion in this case was more to give PrinceGloria a chance to save the page somewhere before it is disposed of. Texugo (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the major subdivisions that are commonly used either follow the "new" (post 2001) Bezirke or the "old" (pre 2001) Bezirke with the latter being generally smaller. Another subdivision is made by the zones of public transport but rarely used. A thing I have found in some Geography and urban planning articles is City West / City Ost (and than some of the outlying Bezirke mentioned by name) (with City being the German semi-technical term for inner city in lieu of Innenstadt). But I have yet to find a usage of the term Berlin south center. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Berlin#Districts. Texugo (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torreón is a skeleton article that doesn't even have a sleep listing. Can we redirect to parent article? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's a city of 640,000, the center of a metro population of 1.2 million, with its own airport with flights from the US and from around Mexico, with at least a few sights and a couple of events (per WP article). The nearest bigger cities, Saltillo and Durango, and each like 200 miles away. I can't see redirecting this one. Texugo (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. If we were to redirect every skeleton article of cities this size and below, I imagine we'd probably lose upwards of a thousand of them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't agree with 'fire and forget' skeleton article creation. I agree that an article for this city should exist, but not until someone is willing to take the bare minimum of effort on it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to its history, Evan himself created this article in 2006. Even so, though I happen to agree with you that articles shouldn't be created by users who have no intention of developing them beyond the skeleton template, the fact remains that this article does exist - and I don't think the first half of this sentence would suffice as a deletion rationale. And anyway, describing Torreón as a "skeleton article" isn't quite true; it has quite a lengthy "Stay safe" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Evan had not done that then perhaps someone else would have noticed this articles omission and began working on it. In any case it seems that there is a general consensus to keep such articles so therefore I concede the deletion request. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a valid topic. Being just a skeleton neither is nor in my view should be a criterion for deletion. Anyway, this one does have some information. Pashley (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keeping a skeleton created before the WT/WV split means keeping the "content from other websites" attribution, which isn't desirable if actual, original content is added later - that subsequent content needs to be attributed to users here, not to "other websites". Many empty skeletons imported from WT were deleted, this one slipped under the wire just because it had a "stay safe" section. K7L (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Also, the Stay safe section looks overly detailed and may be out-of-date. I'd find a delete-and-recreate cycle acceptable, though not outright deletion. Pashley (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the attribution doesn't link or even refer to WT anymore, I'm not sure there would be great benefit to this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2015&oldid=2954171"