Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2024

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← December 2023 Votes for deletion archives for January 2024 (current) February 2024 →

This article is completely unnecessary in 2023 where every traveller carries a smartphone. There are so many apps to choose from the offer free voice & video calls (whatsapp, facetime, instagram, facebook messenger, line, viber, kakaotalk, etc.) that I do not believe this article is necessary or useful anymore. I read it and I got very confused. What do you think? Sgroey (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can consider to have a historic archive for articles which are not up to date, with an appropriate template. /Yvwv (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no reason to keep an archive copy of an obsolete article. Ground Zero (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What makes this obsolete? I think there are still plenty of travellers whose mobile phones don't allow roaming overseas. Actual phone calls (not WhatsApp etc.) are still needed for some purposes, especially communicating with businesses, so VOIP services remain useful for travellers. I used one multiple times to make phone calls to the US when I was in Australia last year. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may need some updates, but the information appears to still be current. I looked at two of the companies listed and their calls are much cheaper than making an international phone call. Although I haven't used VOIP to call landlines for a few years, it is good to see that it is still available and could be useful in the trip planning stage when I want to call foreign businesses when planning a trip, and much cheaper than using my mobile or landline. Apps may be useful for calling friends, but are unlikely to work to make first contact with the guesthouse that doesn't have online booking. AlasdairW (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was initially leaning delete, but I'm convinced with what Mx Granger mentioned. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus leaning keep; thus kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. I don't see anything here that's remotely useful that I can't find on Wikipedia. The last human edit was in 2018. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the E and GR paths are "sufficiently famous, marked routes", which aren't subject to the one-year rule. If the article is useless, it can be redirected to Long-distance walking in Europe, where the listing should be linked to Wikipedia (via the wikidata parameter). I am not sure how to best both keep the history easily findable and avoid a link redirected back. –LPfi (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the latter can be handled well enough by redirecting to the listing (by wikidata ID), so that returning would be obvious and you don't need to scroll around to find the same place on the page. –LPfi (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm in the keep boat after you've expanded it. Thanks for the expansions, LPfi! (I will withdraw this if there are no objections by tomorrow) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we close this nomination given we're all in agreement here for keeping the article? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:LPfi gives good reasons above & he or she has now expanded the article considerably (>4k bytes). Pashley (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: nomination withdrawn; we all unanimously agree with keeping E9. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2024&oldid=4809050"