Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2016

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← March 2016 Votes for deletion archives for May 2016 (current) June 2016 →

This has to be one of the weirdest articles I've ever seen on WV. An article for some tourist cooperation organization between different destinations or something. Has anyone heard about this organization before, because I sure haven't, or possibly used the organization's services in some way? I cannot really see how the stuff that's in the article right now could benefit the voyager? I'd say let's delete it (of course the nice banner should definitely be reused somewhere else).

As a side note, in the article's old VFD discussion from 2008 it's mentioned that it's a verbatim copy of w:Alpine pearls, also the tag on the top of the WP article points out that it's written like an ad, which is largely true. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it were possible to expand this topic to article length, which I doubt, the fact remains that this is way outside the site's scope. Not to mention the copyvio issues and the fact that no meaningful edits have been made to it since 2008. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An Italian version of this article was created last week, so I think that it might be good to wait a couple of weeks to see if it develops. Otherwise I would agree that it should be deleted. AlasdairW (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm having trouble seeing how this could be turned into a really travel-related article. This seems like the kind of remark that could be made in passing in a single sentence in each relevant article: "Town X, as a member of Alpine Pearls (include link), is well set up for visitors without a car." Then, the town's public transportation options can be detailed as normal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward Delete: As written, the article has no useful info for the traveller, except possibly a list of alpine destinations where you don't need a car to get around. I don't understand German well, but their website seems to be a promotional link farm, and the English version gives a 404 error. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever might be useful into Alps and then redirect. As noted in the nomination this article went through a VFD previously (see Talk:Alpine pearls) and that was the outcome at the time. The copyvio concerns were raised in that discussion, but apparently it was the same user who created it here and on Wikipedia. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merged some of text into Alps. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyauk Padaung is no real sight to visit in Myanmar. It does not have any tourist accommodation. The articel has not grown or been modified for 2.5 years. The only reason to come here is to visit Mt. Popa, which however has a comprehensive article including transport via Kyauk Padaung.

Ceever (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the information into Mount Popa (which by the way should probably be a park article) and redirect. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is Mt. Popa in or outside of Kyauk Padaung? If it's in Kyauk Padaung, another solution (and probably a more mainstream one on this site, I think) would be to merge Mount Popa with Kyaukpadaung. Ceever, I'm sure you'll say that's a terrible idea. But why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not part of the city but about 5-10 km outside and it is kind of national park. However, it is not really the park that is the interesting thing but the shrine on top of a cliff which stands in this park. I already moved all relevant information to Mt. Popa. Hence, let's redirect. Ceever (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Outcome: Merged --Traveler100 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like to police the fairness of a review of aggregators from touters? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep - Wikipedia links have been removed in favor of Wikivoyage red links. Only mild because the traveling public is already aware of the existence of these services that are a melter of
  1. w:Metasearch engines - answers question "What hotels there are?"
  2. w:Review aggregators - "What kind of hotels they are?" "What did the other guests like and dislike?" "Which are the best booking sites for software and service quality?"
  3. w:Comparison shopping website "Where do I get a price on par with the best price out there?" Consumer knows the invisible green hand fathomed by Adam Smith is working in his/her favor in this case. Needing to match price leader is a requirement for many operators, some because they have a "lowest price" guarantee and some just because otherwise they'd lose the business of the customers if one didn't match it.
  4. Booking webshop "(Where can I purchase?")
Instead of fighting the future and fighting the different actors in the field of travel related information we should embrace what the traveling consumer is going to use anyways we should focus our strength into getting a w:semantic Wikivoayge going with Wikidata.org where all sorts of information can be stored in a w:triplestore and consumer preferences and selections determine which objects are displayed to whom and to whom not. Jukeboksi (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved vfd'd page to User:Jukeboksi/lists/Travel price aggregators to improve the info there. Forgot to suppress the creation of the redirect. My bad. Jukeboksi (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "suppress creation of redirect" on move is only available to administrators. K7L (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but Votes for deletion is not normally a place where a change in policy is debated. In general, articles are saved on Vfd only on the basis of current policy. So as I see it, your line of argumentation should have substantially weakened the case for keeping this article - at least in anything vaguely resembling its current form. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Moved to user page --Traveler100 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No license provided nor was any reason given for uploading locally rather than to Commons. Recommend a speedy delete, but listing here to give the uploader a chance to provide an explanation. @Theu virjilio:. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Speedy deleted -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be a duplication of Malaga and or other articles. It does not seem to serve any purpose in its current (stub) form. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Spanish geography, but the Axarquía article claims that Velez-Malaga is its capital, while Málaga is the capital of the larger Málaga province, of which Axarquia is part. Wikipedia has separate articles on the two cities: w:Vélez-Málaga, w:Málaga. Powers (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that and the article does not make that clear at all. It does not make anything clear, to be honest. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's confusing, but it's not surprising that a stub article isn't entirely clear. I was helped out by the Wikipedia links in the sidebar, which seem to be correct. I suggest adding the small-city template and promoting to Outline. Powers (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Keep --Traveler100 (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The intro and the first three sections start out promising, and only thereafter does it turn into a monstrous link farm. We should definitely get rid of the long lists of external links, but as for the article itself I'm not convinced of the value of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this may be first time ever I would agree for keeping, because the subject matter should be covered by WV obviously. One needs to delete the list of links though, if relevant they should go to destination articles. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you are probably right. If approached in an entirely different way, this topic could be fine to cover. So I'm going to change my initial comment, but I still think this discussion may be good to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is ecological, economical and convenient.
A central list is useful for keeping the article entries in good validity and does not hurt anyone as far as I can see but I can also host it on my consumer empowerment wiki if the people totally hate this list article.
Language question: Car-sharing or carsharing?
There is much work to be done for the carsharing since we need to research which services allow travelers to acquire access to fleet and which require national drivers licence or nationality or some such limitations.
Ridesharing services shoulnd't have limitations and are well applicable for affordable and convenient alternative travel from city to city.
I truly belive if someone purchases a car into a dedicated carsharing fleet somewhere, or a peer-to-peer carsharing scheme updates its service area to include new areas, it is worth mentioning.
If there is one traveler finding a ridesharing ride an excellent decision for their transportation needs with lots of local color included the service is worth mentioning. Jukeboksi (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm OK with the article as it is now. It can be expanded with more information on how to use these services, rather than the long bunch of links that made me want to delete this article before. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Keep in rewritten form --Traveler100 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2016&oldid=4064737"