Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2016

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← January 2016 Votes for deletion archives for February 2016 (current) March 2016 →
  • Delete - Seriously would anyone find this useful when traveling to Europe? It is just a mass dump of information for the sake of it, and not with the interests of the traveler in mind. The 'useful' info' contained has been copied to other more worthwhile articles. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can tell no one has cited a valid reason as to why this article should be deleted rather than merged/redirected, so my inclination would be to close this VFD as a "keep" and have this discussion continue at Talk:Low-cost airlines in Europe unless there are further arguments that would justify a deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the other ones can't be saved or salvaged, this one won't be, either. I think our coverage is best handled under air travel on a budget which gets updated a lot more regularly than those articles do. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • There is nothing different about the Asian market except perhaps for the less "open skies" than in Europe, but this concerns airlines as businesses and is not really much of an issue for the traveller. The article does not really cover Asia as such, but individual markets one by one, which is better handled in individual country articles. Much of the article is outdated and its redundancy with other articles and better sources (e.g. airlines' own websites) guarantees it will forever be. No reason to keep it around and confuse the traveller with the misfortune to stumble upon it. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as someone who does travel in East Asia, I would not trust this long list of airlines and destinations to be accurate. Maybe the intent was good, but we should be providing solid travel advise, not a list of (probably incorrect) routes that I would be getting from Expedia, not WV. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can tell no one has cited a valid reason as to why this article should be deleted rather than merged/redirected, so my inclination would be to close this VFD as a "keep" and have this discussion continue at Talk:Low-cost airlines in Asia unless there are further arguments that would justify a deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything of value still left in this article (and if that is not horribly outdated) it should be covered in air travel in the US Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's quite a bit of information there. Do you have specific concerns about it? Powers (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, is there any definition of low cost airline that is meaningful for the traveler and applies to the US? Some lcc charge more fees on stuff than the legacy airlines some don't charge much of anything for anything. Some are knee-crunching, some have a bit more legroom. Besides, we already have air travel in the US. And as for the travel options for active military... I don't even know whether that belongs here at all or is even up to date. We don't list special travel arrangements for people who work at Volkswagen or the Chinese railways, do we? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than having a mildly interesting name (and no listings whatsoever), what reason is there to keep this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a real place and as far as I can tell there is no plausible reason why it would be deleted rather than redirected (at worst) per WV:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting. Talk:Congress has an extensive discussion about its article-worthiness. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which as far as I can see ended with "Well you can't really sleep there or do anything there, but let's just wait and see" - and I remind you, said discussion was almost a decade ago when many policies where still being hashed out... As for redirecting: Do you really think someone looking for Congress is looking for some rural county somewhere? I mean, the things most people think of hearing Congress are concurrent resolutions or baboons... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comment below. This is a good merge/redirect candidate but absolutely not a good deletion candidate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP : "As of the census of 2010, there were 185 people, 65 households, and 48 families residing in the village". It doesn't appear to meet Wiaa and the actual content on WV is minimal so I would redirect to the nearest town. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the confusion, but my proposed solution would be to change the article's name to Congress (Ohio) and redirect that search term, while making sure to mention the couple of content-laden remarks that are currently in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I understand this discussion correctly we should move the page (without leaving a redirect) and then merge and redirect the resultant page, correct? Because having a confusing redirect from Congress is not desirable or am I much mistaken? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Move to Congress (Ohio) without leaving a redirect and then merge and redirect the page to Wooster. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Moved without leaving a redirect by User:Traveler100. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates added by User:Shavisdonovan

This new user created an article about himself which was speedily deleted as obviously outside the scope of Wikivoyage.

I believe the following 3 templates should also be subject to speedy deletion as reflecting Wikipedia policies in conflict with or irrelevant to Wikivoyage, but I would like to have a consensus before deleting them:

Template:Infobox musical artist/doc

Template:Infobox musical artist

Template:Person infobox header

Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user imported a bot (deleted) to recreate an article about himself; deleted along with another bot he imported. I will block him indefinitely for vandalism if he tries anything funny again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user is blocked indefinitely on Wiktionary. "Reason: Spamming/advertising: over the course of many years". I will block him indefinitely on Wikivoyage now, and I think it makes perfect sense to do a mass delete including these irrelevant templates. I don't think anyone will disagree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Speedy deleted by User:Ikan Kekek. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly content-less "extraregion", I see no purpose for keeping it and no useful place to redirect. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extraregion full of redlinks. Either convert into some of the things we have historically done with rural areas, redirect to Bavaria or delete. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually suggest changing this to a Park template and renaming Bavarian Forest National Park as per w:Bavarian_Forest_National_Park --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually make more sense than the current mess the article is. But some work would be required to remove the red sea it currently contains... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate (and sympathize) with your dislike of the 'red sea', but I checked out some of those towns and they do meet the Wiaa criteria. That said Bavarian Forest National Park is a valid destination, and would indeed tidy things up a great deal (not all of those towns would be needed) and be of far greater use to the traveler as a destination article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the right place for this discussion, as we don't delete real places. Try Talk:Bavarian Forest. Powers (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong because 'Bavarian Forest' is a description of a general area in South East German, and not a 'real place'. The (very short) discussion above yielded a result that would preserve it by remodelling into a 'real place'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to argue policy, but I do think some real places should be deleted if their redirection just makes no sense whatsoever. Take a census designated place of no interest with a name so common it would have to be disambiguated with its county... Or an individual island that contains nothing more than a single tree. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, 'we do not delete real places' has become a bit of a self-perpetuating soundbite used to shut down discussion, when in fact we should refer to Wiaa for actual guidance. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's to save pointless arguments like this one, where there are obvious redirect targets and no reason to waste an admin's time with deletion. Powers (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the conclusion is Redirect to Bavarian Forest National Park and Change the template to Park --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with move to Park. the name and page is referenced on a number of page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is general agreement to preserve and change. Will fix tomorrow if no further comment. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and removed the VFD tag. Article still needs a lot of work to move from 'outline' but hopefully this concludes everything. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now we can go about the more difficult task of either creating articles on (some of) the redlinks or consolidating them in some other form, preferably within the Bavarian Forest National Park article itself... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Please be sure to cite a reason for deleting an article from the WV:Deletion policy in nominations. Unless I'm missing something, this would (at worst) be a candidate for merging and redirecting, but there is no reason to delete it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case this was still unclear I am now also in favor of keeping this park article as Bavarian Forest National Park Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An extra-hierarchical region which is not currently extra-hierarchical but still serves no purpose whatsoever... Either delete or redirect to Schleswig Holstein Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand - maybe make into a park article. There are a number of nature parks, lakes with plenty of hiking and cycling opportunities. Recognized tourist area. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think we don't need an article on that region as of yet, but if and when Schleswig Holstein is subdivided into regions once more (IMHO division along a North-South Axis makes more sense for travel purposes then the classic Schleswig - Holstein division, as the difference between Baltic and North Sea is rather pronounced), we might have a need for such a page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Please be sure to cite a reason for deleting an article from the WV:Deletion policy in nominations. Unless I'm missing something, this would (at worst) be a candidate for merging and redirecting, but there is no reason to delete it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of what's done with these extra-region articles, they should not simply be deleted, and you don't need to start a Vfd thread to discuss the possibility of merging/redirecting. Perhaps this one should be turned into a normal region article? Or perhaps a park article, as Traveler100 suggests. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another extra hierarchical region that is not actually extra hierarchical. Maybe some of the content can be merged to its parent region, but I doubt it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think this is a leftover from some earlier reorganization Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania as MP did have sub-regions. I suggest moving any unique information into MeckPomm and then delete or redirect. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Votes for deletion. "Keep" means "do not delete". What else you do with the article should be discussed in the talk page for the article. That's the standard procedure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another extraregion of questionable value. Similar to Westerwald in some regards, which has had a discussion on its talk page as to the merits of keeping as is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place nickname redirects

These two redirects both point to Plymouth (Massachusetts). I assume they're the official nickname of the town, but I fear they may be too generic to serve as desirable redirects. Along the same vein is Missouri's Outdoor Playground, which redirects to Eminence, but that one seems a bit less generic. Thoughts? -- Powers (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we did have a redirect for "The City", it would have to be to City of London. Pashley (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could redirect all over the freakin place! That's the point! :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have The Big Apple. Not sure where we draw the line. Powers (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Big Apple" is a well-known nickname for New York City. I've never heard it used to indicate any other place. That isn't true of "The City" or "America's Home Town". The place to draw the line is when an expression is being used that is either completely obscure and/or could be applied to numerous places pretty indiscriminately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's used promotionally by Plymouth doesn't mean there's any substantial number of people who would type that search term in and not know about Plymouth. I mean, I get the history behind the promotion, but doesn't it strike you as a pretty arrogant term? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does, although I kinda make exceptions for American superlatives since they seem so much more the norm over there :) In any case I wasn't voting for a keep, just that Plymouth could easily lay claim to this term, arrogant or not. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on "The City". Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most nickname redirects should be deleted and no, we do not need one for "The City".
But "The City", meaning the City of London, is commonly used in the UK to refer to their main financial district, much as Americans talk about "Wall Street". Pashley (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Town" should point to St. John's, Newfoundland. Anything else is an outport. :) K7L (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cannot find anything about what to see or do or any places to eat or sleep there. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, and fact that the article has no content. Peter Chastain (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Northeastern Michigan. Yet again, we do not delete real places. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without leaving a redirect - No. I don't know where this policy comes from that we "don't delete real places" but we cannot redirect every Pahdonk in rural Wyoming to some region or city article just because some page creation vandal created the article to make a point. There are seven billion people on this earth. Half of them live in what the UN calls cities. Which means the other half is spread out over places that don't make definitions that in Denmark have a hundred people threshold and in some other places less. It would be ridiculous to have a redirect for every single of these places and even more ridiculous to have disambiguation pages full of those redirects. We will have to draw the line somewhere and yes, this will involve deleting "real places". Not all places with a population lower than x (and it is no matter where set x) will have to be deleted without leaving a redirect. But as one famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography once said "I know it when I see it". And in this case (unlike the ruling in the SC case), this is it. This should be deleted. Without redirect and without mercy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlikely search term of no real SEO value. A web search finds the village town hall and a (members-only) shooting club, but nothing of interest to the traveller. No point in redirecting this to another page if the target page has no useful info (and will have no useful info) on this village. K7L (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete When an article is created with literally no content - just an empty skeleton, and in this case no effort to even change the [[Region name]] link to a real place - I'd be in favor of giving the user a short time to develop the article more fully, but to then allow deletion it if it stays empty (provided there isn't an obvious redirect target). Our policy on this type of useless article isn't really settled, but I agree with others who feel that the site quality is compromised by articles without content for places that probably don't merit an article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete since there is not a good redirect target, and per the "no useful content or test" criteria since there isn't enough info present to make it clear that this was anything other than someone randomly clicking on links. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Policy says that we don't redirect real places, and that settles the matter as far as I'm concerned. If we want to talk about changing policy, fine, but here is not the place to do it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is there evidence that this was a case of page creation vandalism? If so, that would amply justify straight deletion per policy. If not, the "redirect real places" policy governs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and then Redirect - Policy can be interpreted in conflicting ways in this situation, however since it doesn't meet Wiaa policy anyway then a redirect would be appropriate. A few days to allow the contributor to prove that the article is sufficiently compelling would be also appropriate. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but aren't a minimum of 14 days required before taking action on a VfD that's not a slam-dunk speedy deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is the obvious solution when there is a good redirect target, but in this case the proposed resolution is to redirect a village of a few hundred people to Northeastern Michigan, an area larger than some US states; I'm not sure that solution makes much sense from a usability perspective. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, redirecting would be a lateral move that does no harm; at best, it might inspire someone searching for Alger but redirected to Northeastern Michigan to add content. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to have a discussion about (the current interpretation of the) "always redirect" rule. I don't think I am the only one to think this is taking us to ridiculous places more often than not. Some of our existing redirects don't make real sense (Central Germany redirects to Germany, which is not really helpful for anybody except as a satisfaction of policy). And as for the specific case, the IP that created the article in question (with the wrong template to boot) made not a single other edit. It may just have been someone who hit some button by mistake for all I know... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear the always redirect rule isn't working anymore. The whole point of the rule is so that we could avoid discussions like this one, but we are obviously no longer avoiding them. Powers (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the confusion is that there isn't an "always redirect rule"; instead we have a rule of thumb to apply in the majority of cases, but the rule of thumb fails in cases where there isn't an obvious redirect target. From the deletion policy: "The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete". -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there always is an obvious redirect target, that being the article next higher up in the breadcrumb hierarchy. I just don't see it as an important issue whether the geographic area covered by the redirect target is very large, or whether the redirect target doesn't have any content. In the first case, any region article that's too wide in geographic scope to comfortably contain all the information we have about what's within its borders would already have been broken down into smaller regions anyway. In the latter case, as I said above, anyone who searches for Alger and is redirected to an article with no information ought to be inspired to either create the Alger article or add content to the redirect article. In either case, the ultimate principle behind it is that redirects are cheap and do no harm. As to Powers' comments, the "always redirect" rule is working fine. What's not working is that no matter how often we go over it on this page, certain users can't seem to grasp the concept of what to do with skeleton articles: if it's a place that's large or important enough that it could hypothetically support an article of its own, leave it alone; if not, redirect it yourself without putting it through the VfD process. I understand that it's frustrating that some people need to be repeatedly reminded of this very simple rule, but that's not the rule's fault. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't speak down to "certain users"; if there's nothing to see or do, nowhere to eat and nowhere to sleep then waiting for someone to be "inspired to either create the Alger article or add content to the redirect article" is pointless. There's no Alger content to add. K7L (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't explain what harm would be done by a redirect. If a user searches for Alger, is redirected to Northeastern Michigan, and finds no information there either, the obvious conclusion is that there's nothing for tourists to do in Alger. That constitutes an accurate answer to the question that prompted the search. Also, anyone in that situation who does feel inspired to add information to either Alger or Northeastern Michigan, then searches for that information in other sources and finds nothing, comes to the same conclusion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here - if a search for "Alger Michigan" leads to a Northeastern Michigan article that has no mention of anything about Alger I don't think it is at all obvious that "there's nothing for tourists to do in Alger", and I think it's more confusing than just showing "no results found". I also think that a redirect in this case would discourage adding any content since content about a village of a few hundred people does not belong in an article that covers 20% of the state of Michigan. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then Andre is right that we need to change policy on deleting vs redirecting. While I accept your correction that the rule is not "always redirect", the policy seems clear to me that the cases for non-redirection have always been intended to be local establishments and facilities, not geographic locations for which we don't want to write articles. If you want the rule of thumb to not apply to such places, then the rule needs to be clarified. Powers (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I asked, should have just deleted the page. Sometimes forget some peoples obsessions with the letter of the law rather than being sensible. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be entirely contrary to policy and an abuse of your administrator tools. Not cool. (Nor is the backhanded aspersion about "obsessions with the letter of the law".) Powers (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We allow admins some measure of discretion, and a strong argument could have been made for deleting this article as "no useful content or test", so accusations of admin abuse might be a bit harsh. Everyone in this discussion has the project's best interest at heart, but I think this and other discussions are revealing that an effort to simplify and clarify the site's policies would be valuable since they are being interpreted differently by different people. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think the "no useful content" clause was intended to allow deletion of articles on real places. Powers (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is almost certainly a case of creation vandalism: with a few keystrokes, an IP user in Algeria copies a template, without bothering to change the lede from "Region name is in Country name," and has us all jumping through hoops. That single edit is the one and only contribution to WV from that IP user. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That user doesn't sound like a vandal but someone who wanted to start an article for Alger, Algerie, which they didn't realize is Algiers, Algeria in English (the former is the French-language name). That the user did very little and never came back doesn't prove s/he's a vandal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I didn't make that connection. I should have done a better job of assuming good faith. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirecting a place to the next layer up the hierarchy is user-unfriendly, unless the target article mentions that place, because the user will waste time looking for why she was redirected. If Alger is redirected to (and mentioned in) Northeastern Michigan, we should also mention all the other villages of similar size in that region. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Peter Chastain's first comment, I'll agree we should delete this article, but I stand by everything I said about the "always redirect" rule as applied in all cases that aren't clearly page-creation vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Ikan Kekek's observation, I am no longer sure it was vandalism. But I don't think a decision to keep or delete should hinge on the creator's motivation, so my first comment isn't really that relevant. Regarding "always redirect", you may want to weigh in on a proposal I have made at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Delete vs redirect. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a lot more sensible to redirect Alger to Algiers than to treat the term as referring to some tiny town in Michigan. Anyone want to reconsider? If people really object to this idea, make it a disambig page if you really must. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind: Alger is already a disambig page. OK, so back to Alger (Michigan)... Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Delete. -- Original creator has not further edited a region template of a very small settlement. Assuming test edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2016&oldid=2954159"