Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2017

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← June 2017 Votes for deletion archives for July 2017 (current) August 2017 →

Per some comments made at the pub recently about "useless" outlines.

I am of the view that given the lack of interest, this isn't going to be sustainable in it's current form. If there's anything useful it can be merged, but otherwise given the concerns expressed in the previous VfD this can't be sustained as it's own topic.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was retained by consensus, against my own feelings at the time ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the page name will draw those interested. I'd say keep but think about a better page title. PsamatheM (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep since it survived a nomination a few months back. It should not have been nominated again unless something important has changed & checking page history I see no sign of that. I'm a little mysitified here since the nominator seems to have contributed fairly extensively to the article.
For this & several of the following ones, see also discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Short_.22useless.22_articles. Pashley (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At times I get the impression I'm the ONLY contributor, but another contributor has taken up the challange of expanding this. so
Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this article was almost certainly created in good faith, I am not convinced based on recent comments in the pub , and previous VfD on a related article, that this is sustainable as it's own article.

By all means legends about supposed cryptids could be mentioned where relevant in region/city articles, I am not sure they are of sufficient general interest to merit their own article, and there have been concerns expressed recently about "useless" stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snowball clause time? Withdrawn

No information, other than a location data and a banner. Are such blank articles really useful, per recent comments at the pub about "useless" stubs and outlines? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No matter how many times the issue gets brought up in the pub, it remains the case that lack of content is not a valid rationale for deletion of an article that otherwise fulfills the requirements of wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was created less than a month ago, presumably with the intention of adding more content. There are a number of POIs, and it is a good-sized town. –StellarD (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, this one was my bad. I did intend to add content and got distracted. It is a good sized town however. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, Plunge Forward! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles like this really useful, content here could be merged to the parent surely? (Nom per comments recently expressed at the pub about "useless" stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for the same reason as Villarreal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Plunge forward! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are short outlines like this really useful? Nom per comments at pub about useless stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for the same reason as Villarreal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article actually has a reasonable amount of content (probably not written by someone whose first language was English but that's another matter). It has one sentence on how to get in, one sentence on how to get around, one sight, one restaurant and one lodging place. Deleting it and starting over would take more time and effort than expanding what is already here. I haven't formed an opinion yet on Villarreal which has zero information apart from its location. Gizza (roam) 01:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Plunge forward! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Simpsons connection which could be noted in the relevant travel topic, there's not much in this article. Is such a stubby outline really useful? Nom per the comments made on the pub recently about "useless" stubs/outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expand - is a good sized place, with a couple of POIs. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for the same reason as Villarreal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! -- K7L (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Article was massively expanded by User:K7L, after the VFD nomination. Can be speedy kept. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am bringing this topic to VFD, because I am not convinced that this should be part of a responsible travel guide.

Recently the illegal activities policy was updated, to cover things like trespassing. Based on the current wording and focus of the Urbex article, I'm not convinced it could stay within that policy without a lot of effort.

Also, every single person I've had contact with in the UK, that has what might be termed a professional or academic interest (like architectural history, industrial archeology etc) in otherwise prohibited sites ( or at best off-limits) is that you get permission and the advice of operators/owners before doing anything else, not least so that there's appropriate trust between owners/operators, but so that technical expertise can be shared. This and the role of the countless organized groups that have spent many years building up appropriate procedures for tours of otherwise off limits locations, is not reflected in the current article at all.

I appreciate that the Urbex article has a rather long Stay Safe section, but for some 'off-limits' destinations, more than just reasonable footwear would be needed. I have had someone that did building investigations comment that in a particular abandoned industrial buildings, they had to have not only reasonable footwear (work boots), but overalls, hard hats, dust masks (due to pigeon droppings) as well. Knowing what's needed for any given site, is the sort of expertise that is ONLY known by site operators/owners or specialist groups that have visited similar sites before. There is also the possibility of encountering materials, which were widley used before their risks were fully understood (Asbestos, lead paint, boiler/furnace insulation, being amongst them.). Again site operators/owners are the best to advise potential visitors on such risks.

Whilst I am not opposed to a travel guide including some more unusual destinations,(Wikivoyage for example does include former bunkers amongst it's See listings), I'm still convinced an article like Urbex needs a fundamental rethink, and shift in emphasis to sites which can be definitely be visited legally, be it with permission, or as part of organized tours, over giving inadvertent publicity to so termed "infiltration" which in many jurisdictions whilst not a crime in all circumstances, is still regarded as "not the done thing" culturally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sooner see it rewritten than deleted, but I am not about to take on that task. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When this came up before, I suggested that at least the section on infiltration needed to be deleted. I agree that this article needs major editing, but I'm not sure it has to be deleted in full. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the bit on infiltration needs to be rewritten to remove the whole off-topic "sneaking into otherwise-open venues without paying" aspect, there's a huge difference between proposing a change to the wording of one section vs. deleting an entire article. If there's a need to contact the owners of an abandoned property, don protective gear, whatever... say so. That doesn't mean the main topic itself is invalid. I don't believe the recent edit to the illegal activities policy was intended to serve as a pretext for a VfD nom of Urbex. If it was, then there should've been some discussion before changing the policy page - and there was none. K7L (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strangely written and the focus appears more philosophical than practical, maybe it should be donated to the vagabonding wiki and removed from here. It can't be good when the whole focus of an article is borderline illegal to begin with, it goes far beyond a note like "you can jump the fence". What is proposed here is unsafe in general and if such a long caution about safety is required I don't think we should be advocating it at allWillthewanderer (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What vagabonding wiki? I did some Googling without turning it up. Pashley (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be perfectly happy with an Abandoned sites or Old buildings topic, provided that the genuinely legal ways of exploring them were given rather than the borderline tactics associated with Urbex. I however note that we already have Ghost towns, Urban rail adventures, Underground works, Architecture travel topics, and perhaps some of the comments about legally accessing "abandoned" sites would be best placed in those articles rather than an Ubrex one. I will also note that Buildings archaeology is a valid field, and there will be travellers with a genuine interest in old (and not so old) buildings. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created in good faith, but per some comments on the pub recently, and as I seem to be the majority contributor to this, not convinced it's sustainable as a distinct travel topic. Anything useful could be merged (but it's mostly seasonal anyway).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I think that Halloween is a sufficient event in the US and the UK to have an article. However this article could be greatly improved - it is lacking the full Understand that would explain Halloween to somebody who has never heard of it (I don't think that it observed worldwide), and explain the differences between the UK and US traditions. AlasdairW (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outcome: Kept --Saqib (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created in good faith, but lack of activity suggests there isn't the interest to sustain this as a separate topic. Anything useful could be merged and this deleted per recent comments on the pub about "useless" stubs and outlines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the slow progress on this, I'm not convinced there's enough for it to be sustainable as it's own article, given recent comments about "useless" stubs and outlines in the pub. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By comparison, Pioneer villages and Open air museums, seems to have much more content. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer not to see this lumped into pioneer villages as that article addresses a deliberately narrow topic – open-air living historical museums covering a colonial time period just before the steam era. Re-enactment is used by many venues that aren't museums or constructed to depict entire villages, such as individual fortresses or simple annual events celebrating some historic date (such as a nation's birthday). K7L (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article does no harm, and it could develop into something worthwhile. Some discussion on what it should include would be useful for getting others to participate. It is of course easy to include events, but my experience is that such lists easily get many listings from a specific area, while major events are missing from anywhere else. It is much more easy to get a balanced list if there is some indication on intended scope. --LPfi (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Why do we even have a redirect as pointless as this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • To answer your question, Hobbitschuster, there was once a separate article under this title. However, since this isn't a real place (meaning that there's no physical spot on the map named "Be Smart When It Comes To Disney World") nor is it a likely search term, the question of why to retain it as a redirect after merging the relevant information is a good one. I think it's fine to delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends on whether the article history contains any text which we're still using in any of the Disney-related articles. We don't need to keep the history unless we keep or re-use the text. K7L (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reason for keeping redirects is when we think there might be external links to the redirected title. Was the content such that people might have linked to it (and never changed the links as they are still working)? --LPfi (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would consider that extremely unlikely, given that the page has been a redirect ever since we've been Wikivoyage. And the other link would of course not be influenced by any thing we do. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Then that is not an issue. If somebody moved to link over to here manually, they probably checked it and linked our article directly. And if it was moved automatically, the site probably has lots of links to here, and loosing a doubtful one is no problem. --LPfi (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An anon-IP left a comment on User talk:LtPowers#Delete Be Smart When It Comes To Disney World back in 2008, saying "I cut and pasted information from this page into the Walt Disney World resort page. That page can be deleted now. —The preceding comment was added by 70.232.35.201". Were there any contributors to the page, other than this one IP? K7L (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21:41, 10 April 2009‎ Peterfitzgerald m . . (31 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (Redirecting to Walt Disney World)
00:15, 2 September 2008‎ LtPowers . . (38 bytes) (-5,538)‎ . . (redirect)
17:35, 26 August 2008‎ 70.232.35.201 . . (5,576 bytes) (+147)‎ . .
03:39, 10 May 2007‎ Cacahuate . . (5,429 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (+ merge)
00:10, 10 May 2007‎ 71.36.41.151 . . (5,406 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Learn to Wait)
00:06, 10 May 2007‎ 71.36.41.151 . . (5,402 bytes) (-29)‎ . .
00:01, 10 May 2007‎ 71.36.41.151 . . (5,431 bytes) (+5,431)‎ . . (New page: {travel topic} The trick: Don’t leave anything to chance but let the kids think it’s magic. * Learn to Wait – If this is the first time for the family, don’t go until the y...)
So the page was created by 71.36.41.151 (contributing in May 2007) and copied to Walt Disney World by 70.232.35.201 (contributing in August 2008). I'd suspect neither person (or the person if identical) has any interest in attribution to IP numbers, which probably have changed hands many times since. --LPfi (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a speedy? Promotes another travel guide, though without a link. I'm nominating it here instead of just nuking it because it seems to me the contest might be of interest to some travellers.

It also has a truly horrible title & some grammar errors, but those problems are fixable. At best, it should survive after a move with no redirect, some rewriting, & a link to the actual contest site. My quick bit of Googling did not turn up a link, though. Pashley (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. This is an easy speedy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted it as spam. It was easy. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A recently created redirect that I think violates policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion policy says that "exceptions are made for large and/or important businesses and services" like Amtrak, and I think this is an example of a large, important service like that. Certainly the redirect is useful to travellers, and Airbnb has its own section in the target article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, the more I think we should never have allowed the exception for Amtrak. There certainly isn't one for Deutsche Bahn which would have much more reason for it than a private company of questionable business policies. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the generic term for an AirBnB-style property? Is it obvious to the user that these should be vacation rentals or that these should be hospitality exchange? Maybe home stay networks? calls them "home sharing platforms". For that matter, if the redirect is deleted, is that just increasing the chance of a subsequent user creating an article on this title which we don't actually want? K7L (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AirBnB is not the only website one can use to find non-hotel accommodations, as K7L points out. It doesn't merit its own article name, but I wouldn't delete a redirect, as it's a likely search term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this very likely search term, which indeed is at great risk of being recreated over and over again, even has a section in the target area. It's the perfect candidate for a redirect. And that's apart from the fact that discussions over deleting redirects is in the large majority of cases a waste of other contributors' time. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So all AirBnB competitors get redirects as well? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Airbnb is by far the most widely used and searched-for. It dwarfs the competition. It is close to being a "proprietary eponym". We don't have to treat the minnows the same way we treat the industry leader. Ground Zero (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't we have redirects from Holiday Inn to sleep? Or from Jack Daniel's to Alcoholic beverages? Or from Coca Cola to soft drinks? I don't think I quite like the way we are implicitly heading with this. There is a good reason we do not have articles on private companies and we should think long and hard about redirects for private companies, especially if there is a "yes for that one, no for the other one" based on non-objective criteria. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do redirect inn to sleep. Anything that's a likely search term but doesn't merit an article is a redirect candidate. K7L (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some at Wikipedia already think we are basically advertising. I don't think having a bunch of redirects - however well intended - for corporations is a good idea with that in mind. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday Inn is not synonyms for hotels as Airbnb is for hospitality exchange. I don't think that readers would think of searching for "hospitality exchange" when looking for info on Airbnb. Alcoholic drinks and soft drinks are not actually travel topics, and Jack Daniel's isn't synonymous to alcoholic drinks either. Redirecting Airbnb to a list that includes its competitors couldn't be called advertising by reasonable people. Ground Zero (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia, anyone who thinks we're advertising can feel free not to use our site. We're not beholden to their opinion of us. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now hang on a second, those that vote keep or speedy keep are de facto trying to cram AirBnB through the second bullet point here which as the "lex Amtrak" does not actually allow that - quite the contrary. We can change policy - though I'd be opposed to that because it would open the floodgates - but we shouldn't be doing that in such a roundabout fashion and without an explicit discussion to change policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/July_2017&oldid=3243806"