Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2014

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← December 2013 Votes for deletion archives for January 2014 (current) February 2014 →

It was created in migration period as temporary. Needs to go now. --Saqib (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Used no-where and talk page says "It will be removed after the migration is complete." --Saqib (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4 files in [[Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons]]. So it would seem that the migration is not yet complete. Why should we hastily delete a template that might still have some use? It would seem to me that both Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and Template:NowCommons should be kept as long as there is a plausibly imaginable use for them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of four files were not supposed to move and rest two I just moved so Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons is empty now. We don't have much local files and majority are main page banners so if we found a file in future that should be moved to Commons, I think the best will be do it right away rather than adding this template and then wait for someone else to move it. Adding a template to a file takes few seconds but moving a file to Commons takes not more than a minute. --Saqib (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Template:Move have nothing to do with this template, whether this one deleted or kept. Plenty of files were moved to Commons since migration but not even a single file moved was decorated with Template:NowCommons, but instead deleted right away. If you think we going to start placing this template to files moved to Commons in future, then no problem, lets keep it! --Saqib (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so when the file will be moved to Commons, we should add this template instead of deleting it right away when the Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons clearly says "If the file has already been moved to Commons, then consider nominating the file for deletion." --Saqib (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, this is essentially a speedy deletion template. It allows non-admins to flag a file that should be deleted; an admin can then come through and, after making sure the files really are identical and that any uses have been updated to use the new name, delete it without a VfD discussion. Powers (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so for instance: someone found a file tagged with Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons, so after xe move the file to Commons, should xe follow the procedure mentioned on the Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons that "If the file has already been moved to Commons, then consider nominating the file for deletion." or should he add Template:NowCommons to that already moved file whereas Template:NowCommons mentioned nowhere in Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. How xe will be aware of existence of such template, I was not aware of it until today. Also, how to know whether to tag a moved file with Template:NowCommons or to nominate it for VfD? I would like to know the criteria. --Saqib (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One does not need to be an admin to move files to Commons, so that is why the template exists. And our deletion policy clearly allows speedy deletion of files that are now on Commons. --Rschen7754 02:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I said one needs to be an admin to move files? There's a language barrier and I guess I won't able to clearly defend my nomination so hence I withdraw it. --Saqib (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is a non-admin supposed to do after they've moved the file, if we've deleted this template? --Rschen7754 19:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it for speedy deletion so that the file come to attention of admins quickly. --Saqib (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what this template does, essentially, with the benefit of not needing to write a rationale and added instructions for the admin (like being sure to check Commons to make sure the file has been moved properly). Powers (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "The file may be deleted." but it should be changed to "the file should be deleted." Why keep a file that has been moved? So once a file moved, it should be deleted but how likely a file marked with this template come to attention of an admin? A file marked with this template is not being added to any category yet whereas the file should be added to a category (I prefer "Category:Speedy deletion candidates") once this template added to that file so that it can come to attention of an admin. --Saqib (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That the template may not work optimally is not a rationale for deletion. Powers (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my rationale for its deletion. I only asked a question and gave some comments. --Saqib (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted per WOSlinker's outstanding delete vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of Template:NowCommons. Do we really need same templates having different names? --Saqib (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion on the talk page Talk:Diplomatic_missions, this article has not much content, and the little information it provides is incorrect. I would like to nominate this for deletion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC) :I support either deletion or folding any accurate information into a larger article on International travel, which would deal with passports, visas, customs, immigration procedures, and international security procedures as well as consular services in a way that would help the first-time international traveler. In other words, as it stands - as a definitional stub - I vote to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the inaccuracies and expanded it a bit.
Note that "not much content" is not a policy-based deletion rationale, or at least not until it stays that way for a year or so. Hence, unless someone has a policy-based reason to delete or is volunteering to immediately do the considerable work that would be needed to create a decent International travel article, I think we should keep this, at least for now.
It probably needs more expansion. Will my country's mission intervene if I am arrested? Fly me home if I get sick? What are the limits on what they can do, or on what they are likely to be willing to do? Pashley (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes you've made so far, and if you add the kind of practical information you're talking about, I'll be fine with it. But what you've done - let alone what you seem to be proposing to do - makes the article different in kind and not just in degree from what it was. There's a difference between "pertinent content but very little of it" and "a stub and not really accurate definition of a diplomatic mission." Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my nomination wasn't so much 'lack of content' but rather the policy for deletion basis of 'Really bad articles'.
I see you are making a strong effort to add relevant and practical content, so perhaps we can revisit the discussion in a few days? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do we need an article for Diplomatic missions, as pretty much everything could be fitted into other articles? When do you need to visit a consulate or an embassy?
  1. Something bad has happened (you've got sick, robbed, arrested etc.) -> Stay safe, Stay healthy and it's sub articles, Money etc. likely also Authority trouble if that article is kept
  2. You need a new passport -> Passport
  3. You need a visa to go somewhere -> Visa
  4. You need some "bureaucratic" services that aren't really travel related. Voting, notarizing of documents and so on. Well, for the most part this concerns people who are citizens of one country but live in another. Maybe it could be included in Retiring abroad or Studying abroad if we should have information about such things at all. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do now? The creator User:Yvwv has not commented (or worked further) on this article. User:Pashley has been making a lot of updates to increase the quality.
I agree with ϒpsilon. I believe that regardless of the quality content that can be added, the premise that this should be a travel topic on WV is flawed. On this basis I still support Delete Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to give User:Pashley some more latitude to work on this article if he wants to. I vote Keep for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not much want to do anything more here. I've fixed the main errors & I hope clarified it a bit, but I'm not volunteering for the work that would be needed to expand it to cover questions like those I mentioned above. Pashley (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a reason why this topic, now that the main inaccuracies have been fixed, should not be treated like all the other outline travel topics we have: with a one year trial period. We have that policy for a reason. The fact that the information /could/ also be spread over several other articles is true for many articles. If someone wants to use it as part of a larger future "international travel" article, all the better. I wouldn't even mind moving it (now or after a year), to be an outline and start for an "International travel" article, if that's what we want. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely now, I see the article was started by one of our old time, steady contributors. For the record, I want to suggest waiting a bit longer next time for the creator to respond to the issues posted on the talk page, before nominating for deletion. I know it's all not personal, but of course people do mind such a nomination. We have far more to gain from supporting each other than we have from nominating articles a week earlier. Just a thought. In any case, the fact that the article was started by a regular contributor calls for a year trial period even more. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken JuliasTravels. I didn't consider the history of the article creator.
Would it generally be a good idea to recommend that articles such as this are 'incubated' under a user's homepage space in the first instance? Then they would have all the time needed to mature without criticism, and enjoy a more positive reception when entered into WV formally? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a broader discussion, but I personally don't think it's a good way to go for a wiki. It would mean that an article should be more or less complete before it can go into main space. That would put a huge brake on article creation and discourages collaborative authorship. For our core articles, the destinations, it's absolutely normal that someone starts them as just a stub or a short outline, with them or others improving it over time. We already put the one year limitation on new travel topics to avoid proliferation of forgotten outlines. That seems a good compromise between accessibility and quality, I don't see a reason to tighten the rules further. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's decision time. The sole outstanding delete vote goes to ϒpsilon, yet I'm given to understand the article has been spruced up quite a bit since its nomination. Ypsi, would you be so kind as to either amend or reaffirm your vote to delete? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I nominated this article, I would say that although I still don't believe that it is a particularly relevant topic, it has nevertheless been improved to an extent that it now reflects accurate information. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Yes, the article has been improved. I stroke my delete vote above. However I'm still concerned that much of the content of Diplomatic missions would overlap the content of Stay safe, Passport and Visa. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have used the "No useful content" deletion rationale on an article about a place but I think that it should be valid against an itinerary. An itinerary article without an itinerary seems a little pointless. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but that's an issue that needs to be addressed at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know how it works here, Saqib. If you want to change policy, fine, but this is not the place to have that discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an itinerary and as the nominator said above this rational can be valid against this itinerary article. I found your comment here and I started to wonder you commented with same rational on a real place article. --Saqib (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If in the past I have mistakenly advanced invalid deletion rationales, that's unfortunate. However, that does not preclude the fact that our policy on deletion is very strict, and intentionally so: deletion is a very big deal and we should think long and hard before we do something that's difficult to undo. I think your argument has merit, and I'd love to see our policy clarified, because it's obvious to me that empty itineraries should qualify for deletion. However, in my own activities on VfD I've gotten in trouble for deleting articles out of turn (q.v. the "Marriage in China" debacle a few months ago). My goal here is not to be a pest, but to make our policy a bit more fine-grained so that, in the future, this debate doesn't have to happen again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I don't want to sound crass, but... there's so little content and it's so general that you could replace "Goa" with almost any destination in the world. There's not even a single sight or activity mentioned. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent here. Certainly there is currently nothing worth keeping and it hasn't had a substantive contribution in well over a year, so I do not really object to deletion.
On the other hand, a decent itinerary could be created on the topic and this stub was created by a solid long-term contributor User:Ravikiran r. He's rather intermittent though; this year he contributed a bunch in the early months, nothing May-August, quite a bit in Sept, nothing since. I've emailed him; let's see if he responds. Pashley (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully he or somebody else does. Myself I do find itineraries useful and interesting and it's understandable that you can't write a complete itinerary in just one day. But in cases like this when there's really absolutely no content at all the deletion limit could well be lowered from one year limit to, say, three months. It would be good if he would even had listed a couple of sights/activities so that the reader could at least use it as a "skeleton" for building his/her own itinerary. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but an intro, no substantive edits since March 20, 2012, which is well over a year ago. What's the policy problem? Also, Andre, are you saying now that "Marriage in China" should not have been deleted, as a matter of policy? Why not? It was a question of scope, and while I opposed deletion, there was no consensus to keep it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it was a controversial deletion, and a situation where a more clear-cut policy would've been a big help to us. I'm on my mobile phone, so I don't really care to dig back into the archives and see for myself, but if I remember correctly the VfD nomination for Marriage in China was meandering, hard to follow, and involved a tangle of extremely complex issues, and most of the discussion that resulted would've been better suited for Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy rather than a VfD nomination. If lack of content was the only deletion rationale that was advanced here, what I would be saying now is that order to avoid another boondoggle like that, the least contentious route is to retire this nomination, hammer out policy, then come back to it. However, the one-year no-substantive-edit rule supersedes all that in this case, so this discussion is really moot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted; no meaningful content to be merged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please delete Tsushima since it has almost no content and has WT attribution? We can then re-create and I will work on it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted and recreated before end of 14-day comment period. Please let's respect policy and not jump the gun in the future. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pusan disambiguation with WT attribution for the same reason as above. Recreate and direct to Busan afterwards. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pashley (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pashley. I'm not sure how much effect it will have, however I'm sure every little helps. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted, recreated and redirected to Busan before end of 14-day comment period. Please let's respect policy and not jump the gun in the future. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please delete Pyeongchang in order to remove WT attribution? If you check the history, almost all existing content is recently from User:Ypsilon and myself. I have made a copy User:Andrewssi2/Pyeongchang . Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the article was pretty skeletal at the time it was imported and think that the suggested solution (delete and recreate) would be ok, if you skip or massively rework the original content. How do you want to solve the attribution of your vs Ypsilon's contributions? Will you and Ypsilon each add your respective bits? --Danapit (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for my part attributions isn't that important, 'cause I've just basically listingfied stuff (there wasn't even any Konglish to correct). And as I forgot to listingfy the hotels, I just made that on the version in Andrew's user space. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto ϒpsilon. Attribution isn't important for me either. If you like then you can delete the article and replace the content wholesale from User:Andrewssi2/Pyeongchang yourself. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, whether you personally care about the attribution or not, it's important that we maintain as closely as possible the chain of ownership, for reusers' sake if nothing else. I suppose you could make a blanket declaration on your user page that all of your contributions are released under CC0, but you may not actually want to do that. =) Powers (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, based on ϒpsilon's comment about just working on listing formatting, I will assume ownership of the attribution. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nudge Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is to wait two weeks after nominating an article for deletion before deleting it. We gotta wait a couple of days. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was for permanent deletes, although no harm going through the process if need be. I'll wait. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I agree there'd be no need to wait for this nomination process to end (nor harm if you do, though). However, you will need to leave out the remaining sentences from the old version (e.g. eat and drink section). You can also not leave lists of e.g. hotels or restaurants as they are (unless these are the only 3 hotels in town, as in that case there's no selective process underlying that list). The way I would handle assuming ownership when even the smallest of edits might be taken from another user, is to explicitly mention such other authors (e.g Ypsilon) in the edit history when recreating. It's simple, and then you're always on the safe side in terms of copyright law, and generous in terms of acknowledging others. Just a suggestion. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As there didn't seem to be a major opposition, I deleted the article so that Andrewssi2 can recreate it and work further on it. Danapit (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted, recreated. Danapit (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have all transclusions replaced by the marker template. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article for a company, outline travel topic that wasn't significantly edited since 2010, reads like an ad. Jjtkk (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Cruise ships. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd just delete the thing right away; we already have an article for Kochi and I would not say the page name is a likely search term. The individual also added a link to it from Wikivoyage:Itineraries which I reverted. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keralavacations changed the content to be about Kerala, but we already have a Kerala article. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as large portions where taken from the web. I made it a redirect for now (they cost ~nothing, and actually, Kerala uses that Gods own country term for tourism promotion purposes a lot, so it's not all that unlikely a search term.) I'll give more explanation on the user's talk page. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily redirected to Kerala. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2014#Tsushima. Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 09:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thatotherperson. I would be actually inclined to just delete that disambiguation page completely, since it only points to Tsushima right now anyway. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much an advertisement for a specific hotel. There's technically a CDP named after it, but it has a population of less than 100 according to Wikipedia and no real reason to visit unless you're staying at the hotel. Meets the deletion criterion of being too fine-grained; fails the article threshold exception of having multiple lodging options. Merging isn't practical because the prose is all in the tone of an ad or brochure. Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 09:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is to redirect real places; in this case, presumably to Southwest Wyoming. If there's nothing worth merging, OK, but it is at least worth considering putting a de-touted listing for the hotel into the redirect target. Pashley (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that region articles weren't supposed to have individual business listings, but I suppose there's not much of a better spot for it with the nearest city being 20 miles away. Also, I would just like to point out that the page in question has a Wikitravel credit at the bottom, so if we're going to replace the entire page content with a redirect it might as well be deleted and recreated. Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is being merged, it's best to keep the edit history of the redirect page for attribution purposes. Powers (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is an edge case in the policy. Considering the hotel as an attraction, this should clearly be deleted, optionally with a listing added somewhere. Considering it as an article about the census district, it is equally clearly a redirect. Pashley (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there's nothing WT-original worth keeping. The 4-1-1 on the hotel (if we want a listing for that property) should be recreated by going to the hotel's website, the hotel's listing with a state or local tourism office or some source other than a self-promotional entry on WT. At that point, there's nothing to attribute. I do disagree with using the region article as a catch-all for individual listings in out of the way places; that will lead to every hôtelier thinking their random five-room motel belongs in United States of America#Sleep. Either create a section in the nearest city article (like Cobourg#Nearby) or a local article for a vast rural area (like Rural Montgomery County or Prince Edward County) so that the local article covers enough area for there to be more than one point of interest worth listing. K7L (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same article here? I see a whole lot of content under See, Do, and Buy that would make our Southwest Wyoming article ten times better than it is now. Powers (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article almost deserves to be a subpage of Wikivoyage:Words to avoid or Wikivoyage:Don't tout as it breaks every rule to the point where it'd be a good example of what not to do. Every listing in "eat", "drink" and "sleep" points to the same establishment, the Little America Hotel, mostly on the same telephone numbers. Then there's "see" and "do" across a few hundred mile radius, which is ridiculous. "Two National Parks, two National Monuments, one National Recreation Area and one National Memorial Parkway. All are within 275 miles from Little America." and "Four (ski) resorts are within 230 miles". The only listing in "buy" is a mall in Rock Springs which is already listed in that town's article. I'd merge and redirect to Green River (Wyoming) or Rock Springs if there's any content here that isn't already in an article for the appropriate geographic location, but I question whether this is the case. Would it be possible to WV:BJAODN this piece alongside the ones on Hell and Sodom and Gomorrah? K7L (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that stuff is already covered elsewhere on Wikivoyage without the MOS issues. Flaming Gorge and Grand Teton National Parks have their own articles; Fossil Butte is already covered on the main Wyoming article; same goes for Sinks Canyon, which isn't even in Southwest Wyoming based on Wikivoyage's boundaries; Dinosaur National Monument isn't even in Wyoming, let alone Southwest Wyoming. The Skiing and Museums sections are interesting, but again, already covered on the main Wyoming page. What prose is there on the Little America page that we need to preserve?
Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 10:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you discount everything because it's already mentioned on Wyoming, then Southwest Wyoming can never be expanded beyond a stub. I admit I didn't look into it with as much detail as you apparently have; it just seemed like the prose that's there would go well in Southwest Wyoming. If that's incorrect for whatever reason, so be it, I suppose, but surely there's something there that would be better than the empty sections currently on Southwest Wyoming? Powers (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the content on the main Wyoming article is already organized by region, so maybe we could split that stuff out into the region articles as an alternative to leaving them empty. I haven't read through it all, but it looks like a lot of the text could be copied directly whereas the text written by the Little America rep would have to be researched for accuracy, reorganized to comply with Wikivoyage's geographical divisions, and rewritten to avoid referencing the hotel. Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 02:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to Southwest Wyoming; no non-redundant content worth merging per Thatotherperson. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally changed the city of Nampho into a redirect. (owing to lack of content)

Can we please delete so that it can be created into a new city article with no WT attribution? (It will start from scratch) Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted it for the reasons stated. Just make sure to not use the information that was there before to recreate, but I'm sure you're aware of the copyright requirements. I've added it to my list of list of recreation articles to keep it in view and reassure any concerns about the matter. ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedily deleted by JuliasTravels and recreated by Andrewssi2. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A template for fluency in a synthetic language which, unlike Esperanto, does not seem to be at all widespread. Used only once, on a "WT-Eng" user page. Pashley (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imported as Special:PermanentLink/297664 (one hotel and a brew pub, now replaced with new text based on the respective official sites). The original has nowhere to eat, nothing to see and "Do" said basically to leave and go to Tadoussac instead. The rest of the content currently at Chicoutimi-Jonquière is mine and original. I would like to delete Chicoutimi-Jonquière and move Chicoutimi-Jonquière/new (which doesn't use WT) in its place so that my original contributions here are not mis-attributed to WT for SEO purposes. K7L (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and deleted :) Good work on the new one. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new one should go at Saguenay, the current official name of the city. See w:Saguenay, Quebec and our Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean article on the region. Chichoutimi and Jonquiere should be redirects to that. I'm not sure if we actually need one from Chicoutimi-Jonquiere as well, but it could do no harm. Pashley (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The common name is not always the same as the official name, especially when the latter is a relatively recent invention as part of a government effort to close town halls. For instance, we have Merrickville and not Merrickville-Wolford. K7L (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still a VFD candidate? If so, can someone tag the article with {{vfd}}, otherwise can this discussion be archived? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept, copied to Talk:Chicoutimi-Jonquière so further discussion on the name can be had there, if needed. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete for exact same reason as Nampho Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small complication here is that you've merged info from the imported Sinuiju article into Pyongan. As for that, you should actually have mentioned in the edit history that you were merging (rather than creating) info, with a link to the Sinuiju article because that's where the authors of that information are credited. If the info is to stay, we should fix that and leave the history of the Sinuiju article in tact. Alternatives are to remove that info altogether (and not re-use parts of it), or look up who exactly wrote it and credit them (preferably linked to their pages) in the edit history of Pyongan. If it's solved, deleting Sinuiju for recreation should be fine, if you want it. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! I actually don't even remember doing that! I'll consider the best way to proceed, although the city isn't exactly a tourism hotspot so time is on our side. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another complication is that Shinuiju also exists, also redirecting to Pyongan and linked once from N Korea. Pashley (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still a VFD candidate? If so, can someone tag the article with {{vfd}}, otherwise can this discussion be archived? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept JuliasTravels (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2014&oldid=4924050"