Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2022

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← February 2022 Votes for deletion archives for March 2022 (current) April 2022 →

I really wonder who's going to search up Wikipedia for that policy page. A redirect such as Project:Cooperating with Wikipedia would be an acceptable one, but not this. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets views and redirects are cheap. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian skeleton articles

I am still, working through a bumpercrop of new Nigerian articles to ensure that they are roperly breadcrumbed and formatted and so on.

The following articles were created during the recent Nigerian expedition. They were created as skeleton articles with no useful travel information in them. The expedition has been over for three weeks, so it loos like the creators did not get around to adding any useful information.

Unless someone is willing to take these on to develop them, I think that they should be deleted as it is unlikely that there is anything that we can say about them. Ground Zero (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I have left a message for the contributor adding about their plans for Ribadu and Akko (Gombe). Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Ribadu and Akko (Gombe) are kept, the rest deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems just a test page, and we should not be having these kinds of pages in namespace 0 (mainspace). If it is needed for attribution, it should either be redirected to Main page, or moved to namespace 4 (Wikivoyage space), without a redirect, but the page cannot stand how it is. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think that page must have been made to try out a new version of the main page before running it live, but its usefulness was exhausted a long time ago. We could probably speedily delete it, but let's see if anyone objects within 24 hours or so. I can't imagine anyone will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might be problems with attribution with such sandboxes, but in this case Traveler100 was the only contributor, with a number of edits to the main page in the following days. I assume no one else copied anything from the sandbox, so the attribution is handled through the main page history. –LPfi (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of the one-year rule and this looks like a personal itinerary to me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia)

  • Question: I'm not up to finding all the legs of the route right now, but if it's a loop, how random and "personal" is it? We also gave up our crusade against personal itineraries years ago, to my knowledge, and while completely illogical routes and so forth can still be deleted, I really don't want to revive the IMO overzealous period of seeking out any itinerary that could possibly be regarded as "personal" and deleting it, regardless of merit, if it wasn't at guide (not even usable) level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems viable. Although the Understand could be developed, it does tell why somebody would want to go there, how to get there, and it describes the stops. I think it can be regarded as usable for the purpose of the deletion policy for personal itineraries. I think complete Understand and Get in sections is overkill for usable itineraries; the status requirements should be changed. –LPfi (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – has useful information, and I don't see why we would delete it. Looks like it can be promoted to "usable" status in my opinion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept, and upgraded to usable per Granger. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Como stubs by 151.20.20.192 (talk · contribs)

These are pretty much useless articles and most of them are copyright violations. Some of them have been merged, but these are those that haven't. I rollbacked their edits to other articles too.

The other articles not listed have been redirected. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for those that are unaware about this IP, it's worth looking at their talk page for some context. Unfortunately, that IP continues to create new stubs but not answer to messages given to them on their talk page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no-one would object, we could simply delete all of these as "No useful content or test." Does anyone object? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We shouldn't be leaving suspected copyvios and cases of page-creation vandalism for 14 days. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the copyvio in this edit, and you posted a credit to the Wikipedia article on the article's talk page, so I guess we're covered, though the article isn't very useful in its current condition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And they're back under 31.190.197.121... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an embryonic itinerary. If it's not copyvio, let's see how it develops. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Landscapes from Palagia coast range? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it. I've deleted the page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and they're back again under 31.190.200.24. Is this just Luchy04 under an IP? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Maybe we should just block all their usernames and IPs on sight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though the difference is that Luchy04 did respond to messages given to them based on it:Discussioni utente:Luchy04 though communication was still poor. However, a commonality between them and this IP is that both the IP and Luchy04 seem to be editing other languages that they likely do not know. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now discussion continued on WV:UBN. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: All deleted per WV:UBN. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any sense out of this. The article says that Yaza is at lat=10.29 long=13.27 in Anambra State, and it says that it is in Adamawa State. The only Yaza I can find in Nigeria is in Bauchi State at lat=11.44 long=10.23. The article provides directions for how to get to Numan, and the address of a hotel in Mubi, and of a bus company in Yola. This article would frustrate a reader who wants to travel their and does not provide any reliable information.Ground Zero (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds that way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, but how? Who is arguing that this article should be kept? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that the Yaza that is being referred to is a road junction at the northern edge of Muzi (lat=10.2946|long=13.2582, switch to the Mapnik layer to see it). The clue was in the mention of Adamawa State University, and looking at the map linked from the WP article there is a Yaza on the map. It could be merged into Muzi, but I don't think it is worth it for half a sleep listing. AlasdairW (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty pointless redirect. It's an unlikely spelling mistake, and in its entire lifetime, it only received four pageviews. The main issues with it are:

  1. It's incorrectly capitalised
  2. It's an unlikely misspelling given "piccu" does not reflect the pronunciation of "picchu"

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support deletion, but let's hear from User:Hobbitschuster. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope to get a response from him as well. He hasn't responded to any of my pings even though he seems active on the German Wikipedia so he should get the notification. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can choose whether you want notifications from other projects. I have that feature off for some projects, and he might have as well. –LPfi (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep For an English speaker the misspelling may be unlikely, but we have many non-native readers. I don't know where the spelling would be pronounced like Machu Picchu, but somebody might remember only the odd "cc". –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to d:Q676203, the only language that uses "Machu piccu" as a spelling is Scots, but I highly doubt that would be the actual spelling – most of the articles on scowiki was written by someone who know zilch Scots. On top of that, most people who speak Scots also speak English. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's now over a month and a half later. I'd suggest that there is no consensus to delete, so this should be kept. I will close this as a "keep" soon if there is no objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico skeletons with a byte count lower than 600 created by Ligocsicnarf89 (talk · contribs)

These articles were created as part of a mass article creation by Ligocsicnarf89 back in late October. Whilst they have improved many articles, it seems they never got around to adding useful travel content to these ones listed and these don't help travelers.

Some of these don't even have an {{IsPartOf}} template nor an article status template. I am happy to withdraw them if some travel content is added and these articles are improved. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's more articles that have a byte count lower than 1200, which I have not listed, most of which only have one or two sentences in another section and we may need to do a copyvio check for those ones because they too were created in such a short period of time. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Toa Baja has had some work done on it by User:The Eloquent Peasant, who is from Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, some of it is directly copied from w:Toa Baja, but I'd suggest allowing some time to work on that article and not deleting it, and I think the use of the "wikipedia" template on the talk page can address concerns - copying a list of attractions isn't really bad copyvio, anyway, and hopefully, the list can be filled out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn Toa Baja. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's working on San Sebastián (Puerto Rico) now. Should we ask her whether she'd like to work on any or all of the other articles? I'm tempted to suggest we hold off on deleting all of these for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I can keep working on these. If you can hold off on deleting, I'd appreciate it. I can work on them and see how far I can get. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Super! Muchas gracias. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll keep this deletion request halted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please slush this nomination for now and remove the Vfd templates? Orocovis, which obviously shouldn't be deleted, was deleted by mistake because of the template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep working on Orocovis and continue onto Lares next. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do whatever you want with this nom. Thank you The Eloquent Peasant for improving these skeletons :-). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2022&oldid=4420105"