Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2018

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← October 2018 Votes for deletion archives for November 2018 (current) December 2018 →

Currently a redirect to Rapid City#By plane. However, I think the musical genre of rap is definitely a viable travel topic (we already have Jazz, and Wikivoyage:Requested articles includes an idea for an East Coast hip hop tour). If we already had a travel topic article about rap, the best solution would be to turn RAP into a disambiguation page; since we don't yet, and since Rapid City Regional Airport is not nearly major enough to absolutely need its IATA code to redirect, I think it would be prudent to delete the redirect and not needlessly hinder the creation of such a travel topic article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Support. I created the page. It could just as easily be one of the hardcoded IATA redirects, like USA IATA. I don't predict the Rapid City IATA code changing often. ARR8 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the support means support deletion. ARR8 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll go along with consensus & say delete.
As for the more general question of IATA redirects, that was discussed somewhere & the conclusion was they were a good idea. I spent a few hours creating several dozen, all the ones with five or more links on "pages wanted". I think the fact that many had 7 or 8 red links is fairly good evidence they are worthwhile. Pashley (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: Create a disambig page instead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: MediaWiki, by default, is case-sensitive on all but the first character of titles. RAP is not the same article as rap or rap music (with or without the silent leading 'c'). K7L (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    True. This does not show in the search field with the Vector (current default) interface until Rap is created, but when it is, the two coexist as separate pages. So no need to remove the airport redirect, if the other page is created – as article, redirect or disambiguation page. --LPfi (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were my two concerns - that the capitalization might prevent the creation of a new page, and that it might interfere with autocomplete for people trying to search for rap. If neither is true, then I suppose it would be better to have as few hardcoded redirects as possible - so I now lean keep on this. If there's any reason why the presence of this redirect would actually hinder the creation of a new page, I'll vote to delete again. Otherwise, I don't think it does any harm. ARR8 (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than leaving w:Rapid City Regional Airport with KRAP as its ICAO code? I suppose it's harmless. :) K7L (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, sounds like the eventual switch to ICAO will be a memorable event for Rapid City. ARR8 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...as in "this is your captain speaking, we're descending from 25,000 feet and are about to land in, well this could get messy..."? K7L (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not changed any search settings, and when I type "rap" into the search, it takes me to the airport. Same with "Rap", so it does not seem to be case-sensitive. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above: until Rap is created. RAP is just considered the closest match until then. --LPfi (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects like this are very high-value, especially for mobile search. It's much easier to type "LAX" in your phone than to migrate by breadcrumbs or standard links. As always, redirects are cheap, so there's not much incentive to delete them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually just coming over here to say that I’m still for deleting when, as I typed in “vfd” to get to this page, my search term came out as “bff” and I was redirected to the Scottsbluff Airport information. To make it clear, I do not support airport IATA redirects. In most cases I think it’s a waste of time reverting them, but per User:ChubbyWimbus and this other redirect incident I support delete for this redirect. Some earlier comments pulled me a little from the delete zone but I’m now a solid delete supporter again. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well, keep in mind removing the redirect wouldn't help you in this case. If you delete bff, entering bff into the search wouldn't take you to VFD, it'll just take you to a search for the term "bff." ARR8 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Adding IATA redirects has identified a good number of errors on airport descriptions and use of incorrect codes on Wikipedia. Helps readers not make any incorrect bookings, or at least save some time and confusion. Adding Rap solves the search issue. Currently redirect to Music, but if people think this could be a travel topic then should be changed to an article. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a rule, I find the IATA redirects useful—it's easier to search "ORD" or "SFO" than to type the whole name of the airport. And in some cases it's hard to remember the exact name of the airport (is it Guangzhou Baiyun? Or just Baiyun? For me it's easier to search for "CAN"). And sometimes it's not obvious which article an airport will be covered in—easier to type "RDU" than to remember if its main listing is in the Raleigh, Durham, or Research Triangle article. Now that Rap has been created, this redirect seems to do no harm, so there's no need to delete it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we keep "RAP" as an airport redirect, we need to create a disambiguation, because of the common and possibly travel-related meaning of "rap". There have been some other disambiguation pages that have included airport redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is a disambiguation page necessary? Would a reader ever type the word in all caps when looking for the type of music? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you type in all caps or not. It's not case-sensitive. Whoever said that was mistaken. Rap, rap, RAP, rAp, RaP, rAP, RAp: All take you to the same place. You can do the same with any location (ex: pittsBUrgh takes you to Pittsburgh). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChubbyWimbus: That's not correct, and I encourage you to test it for yourself by typing "RAP" and "Rap" into the search box. Once two pages are created that differ in capitalization, the search function respects that difference (with the caveat that, as K7L said, the first character of a page title is not case-sensitive). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think people usually distinguish by case when typing in search boxes, I would beg to differ. I hardly ever use capital letters to search in Wikipedia, and many of our users are familiar with Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that is why the IATA code redirect will not affect most searches people enter. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if we want to help people looking for the IATA code, we need for them to be able to access it using lowercase letters, too, which is why a disambig would be helpful in this case. I think it's very problematic that people have to use ALL-CAPS to access any of the other IATA code redirects. I didn't know that until now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for the IATA template was to provide an easy and clear link from multiple pages to a single page detailing a non huge airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, duly noted. But don't you think it's a problem if someone searches for an airport using lower-case letters and doesn't find it that way? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. It could be solved by a Template:hatnote in the Music article, or by a disambiguation page as you suggest. It feels slightly silly to me to create a disambiguation page for an IATA code and a genre of music that we don't actually have an article for, but I don't strongly object.
By the way, to clarify, you don't usually need to use all-caps to access IATA code redirects. Searching for "ord", "sfo", or "can" works just fine. The software only takes capitalization into account in searches when there are two pages that differ only in capitalization (like RAP and Rap). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have a related question: are there any times railroads or other modes of transport share the names of airport codes? I'm thinking if there was, for example, a train station's name that was abbreviated to "ATL" in Atlanta, or "SJC" in San Jose. This could really pose a problem for IATA redirects. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is. BUF is the IATA code for Buffalo Niagara International Airport and also the Amtrak identifier for Buffalo-Depew train station. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a problem to me. Someone could type in a redirect for the train station but suddenly find themselves at the airport article. And if we're talking about an Amtrak idenification, it seems very possible that IATA/Amtrak codes could be identical in multiple cases. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please study the functionality. If the three letter code has more than one meaning for a travel related topic then there is a dis-ambiguous page which covers all possibilities, for example MGM. The letters used in the IATA template will however always take you to the airport listing or page. This activity has corrected a lot of errors on the site, improved information on airports and provided additional functionality yo readers. You really think it is worth removing all this over a topic that is only indirectly travel related that does not exist! Also should assume reader has some intelligence, why would you type in bff in a travel site if you want to know what other meaning it has, that is what Wikipedia is for. Traveler100 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recall the {{IATA}} template contained a few hard-coded checks for silliness like ROC IATA and PRC IATA (the names of countries Taiwan and mainland China) along with a few others, like GTA IATA (which could be either Grand Theft Auto or Greater Toronto Area - but should actually point to some tiny airport in Gatokae, Solomon Islands). It's nothing that hasn't come up before; I think we can handle the difference between RAP and rap music, as it's less messy than the ICAO code. K7L (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This travel topic article currently contains absolutely no travel-related information, and a request on the talk page last month didn't elicit any suggestions for improving it. Moreover, I question whether this is a coherent topic to begin with—see the talk page for more, but in short I'm not sure Khoisan cultures have enough in common for a joint article to make sense. Separate articles about Khoekhoe culture and San/Bushman culture might make sense in theory, but I doubt we have anyone here knowledgeable enough to write them.

In short, we have an article with no travel information about a topic that may not really be coherent in the first place, with no apparent path to improvement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree. But perhaps it could be improved. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the concerns expressed in the pub and bearing in mind this article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, I think this should be deleted. Please vote, and please - to limit the impact vandals can have on our community - let's keep it brief, whatever the outcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So much detail may not be necessary – we can direct readers to the city or district articles for detailed information. The five or six listings that are pretty close to each other in Manhattan could possibly be combined into one listing as well. I notice that some of them are already covered in a listing in Postwar United States#Crime and terror. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not willing to support this article, for reasons I've stated. However, I can't ignore the amount of content in it, nor the continuing work on it, and I've therefore crossed out my vote to delete. That content, whether it remains in this article or is moved elsewhere, should not be deleted. I will leave a decision of how to handle this to others who are better able to achieve a degree of emotional detachment from this subject. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete - This would remove the sockpuppet's work and put the useful information in one place instead of having it split across multiple pages. As Granger has pointed out, some of the information is already on Postwar United States#Crime and terror. --Robkelk (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the instructions at the top of the page: "If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete." Moreover, most of the information was added by other users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This still seems to lean toward delete, but I'm not sure if there is consensus since things changed with time. Should we add an additional day or two for discussion? The were over a little while ago, but there seems to be nothing like consensus anywhere. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do others think of this? Where would you say the consensus is here? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a fairly clear consensus to delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll do it, then. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As above, this was created by the sockpuppet. However, unlike the above, this article is not inflammatory in content and could potentially be interesting. This is more of a weighing up of priorities: do we care more about discouraging vandals by removing their contributions, or more about saving a possibly worthwhile article from the chop? I have not decided yet and am interested in your thoughts.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of "vote to keep"? Nurg (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't we delete every article started by the Telstra pcv vandal? Why are we adopting a different policy with this? How about deleting it, removing the vandal's edits and recreating it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could. If we're going to do that, though, we might as well just delete the article and be done with it. Wouldn't be my first choice considering the amount of content in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, other individuals have added to the article significantly in the meantime. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why their contributions could be preserved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reason why I didn't vfd this article already is because I didn't want to discourage what I thought was a good-faith new contributor. I'm sorry, but I think this article falls on the wrong side of the scope threshold. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just registered DaGizza's post about Presidents of the United States also having been started by this vandal. But do we have a guideline about what to do with articles started by vandals? If so, what is the guideline? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not fussed if this gets deleted because as others have said, it is niche and at the very edge of what a travel guide would contain but FYI, as per xtools LibMod has created 168 pages here which still aren't deleted, of which 99 are redirects and 69 are not. Many of these articles were created before he became a full-fledged vandal when he was a somewhat good-faith editor, albeit one that didn't want to follow the procedures in place. I don't mind enforcing a rule from now on but it would be pointless deleting all of these articles that are many months old and recreating them. Gizza (roam) 02:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, if anyone creates a decent article, we should not delete it unless it goes against policy in some other way. Telstra creates outlines, we must remember, not worthwhile articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that, we effectively have no punishment for block evasion. ARR8 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with ARR8. The last thing we need to be doing at this juncture of Wikivoyage history is eliminating deterrents to vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we ought to just delete the article. I mean, it's not that great a travel topic idea anyway. If you think that's the best way to deal with the vandalism problem, let's delete then. If the article was something really good, it would be a little different. But it's not like that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's kind of an edge topic. I don't really care if it's flat-out deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K7L is obviously talking about the Seleucid Empire. They're OP bosses in the Rome: Total War series. I actually agree that the useful content from the flag article could be moved to a new American Revolution article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the ammunition for a debate over this can be found at w:List of largest empires... ;) --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given you have changed your opinion, I suggest that you strike out the entire opinions that you no longer hold. It's rather confusing otherwise. Nurg (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done Since I don't feel strongly about keeping or not, I've left the other part of my first comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keeping this page would set a precedent for a couple-hundred other pages: History of the Union Jack, History of the Tricolore, History of the Maple Leaf, History of the Tiraṅgā, History of the Hinomaru, History of the Degel Yisra'el, History of the Türk bayrağı, and so on. And people will complain if their own nation's flag doesn't have an article (instead of starting such an article). --Robkelk (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This feels too narrow to me. How many travellers are going to look for a list of destinations loosely associated with the US flag? I notice that several of the listings (Independence Hall, United States Capitol, Washington Old Hall, etc.) are at best tangentially related to the flag—if those are removed, it seems there will only be about 3–5 listings left, which could be incorporated into our existing US history articles. On top of that the article was created by a block evader. (To DaGizza's point above, there's no reason to delete articles created before the block, only articles that were created while evading the block.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about Presidents of the United States? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest removing the POIs that are only tangentially related to the flag and incorporating the others into Early United States history. I don't really see how this content would fit in the article about the presidents. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although not everyone's cup of tea, I would say that an article skewed towards 'patriotic travel' somehow would be relevant for WV. We do have articles for China such as Long March that I would argue are for a similar type of audience. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never understood what was patriotic about rebelling against the King? Very confused on my tour of Boston. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple: The victors get to define their history. Had the British won, they would have been called traitors and rebels, and the rebellion would have been a footnote to history. And I actually think that giving the colonies seats in Parliament and ending the war would have been a much better outcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can rebel against a leader for patriotic reasons (i.e. if the leader is harming your country). Don't see what could be confusing about that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Traveler100 - The etymology of the word "patriot" essentially means a person who is devoted to the "father"land. In the American Revolution, I imagine that both the loyalists and the rebels saw themselves as patriots; they simply were devoted to different fatherlands. The former were defending the fatherland of Britain from an insurgency in its far-flung reaches, the latter were defending the fatherland of America from an oppressive foreign tyrant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are even people who somehow square the circle of being both in favor of literal treason against the US and considering themselves super patriots of said US... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rebelling to break away is definitely an act of treason, but of course the new republic would never define it as such. Andre's take on what patriotism means is interesting, though. So if I ever take up arms to fight for an independent City State of New York, I'd like to have him on my defense team when I'm arrested for treason. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘One thing to remember in all this is that the United States was not really founded in 1776 as is generally assumed. It wasn't until 1783 that Britain gave up its claims to the U.S. and it wasn't until 1789 (around the same time as the French Revolution) that the current U.S. Constitution was drafted. I think the term "Patriot" was largely a term used for the "rebels" in the War for Independence and then stuck throughout American history, and even though the "Patriots" are no longer fighting the British, anyone who supports the American cause is considered to be a patriot. What I'm not sure about is whether the term "Patriot" is used for people in other countries as well who are loyal to their country. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of splitting hairs here. A good dictionary will give you the definition of the word patriot. The question remains what do we do with the content, if anything? Ideally I'd like a new article name that covers American patriotism from a non-nationalist standpoint. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about something along the lines of "History of Patriotism in the United States" or "Political history of the United States". This could perhaps include a merge with Presidents of the United States. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be nowhere we can merge this, really, that is very relevant. Nothing like consensus. I can't delete it (at least not for now, since I don't have administrator status at the moment), so should an administrator delete the article now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I look through and there's more votes to delete than anything else, and nothing's been done to merge this or moved forward in that aspect. So I'm going to delete it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a scenic lookout, which does not normally get its own article. Instead, this type of attraction is usually listed on the page for the city where the attraction is located... and "Kailasagiri" is already listed at Visakhapatnam#Places to visit (which really should be "Visakhapatnam#See", but that's a separate discussion). --Robkelk (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirected - As pointed out, this sight is indeed already listed. I plunged forward and redirected. A VFD is not needed in cases like these, so feel free to just redirect. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an organization with a bunch of villages of members. It's not any official definition of what's a nice village. Plus, we don't have any other article like this, while I'm sure there are similarly nice towns and villages throughout Europe and beyond.

To add to this, nearly all the villages listed are redlinks. So this article is basically a list of redlinks based on some organization's choice of "beautiful villages". This article either needs a huge renovation or should be deleted; it doesn't do much to advertise Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This strikes me as a useful article for travellers, which could become significantly more useful with a little work. One of Wikivoyage's weaknesses is that it can be hard to find good rural destinations other than nature reserves/parks. I think there are lots of travellers who would like to visit a cute little village in France; without this article I'm not sure where they would look, as these places are all too small to be listed in high-level region articles.
The redlinks are unfortunate, and I would suggest partly mitigating that problem by adding a nearby city or town from which each village can easily be visited. It would also be helpful to add coordinates and a map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be great. If we can find similar associations in other large countries, that would be great too. I would be really grateful for a "Most Beautiful Villages in China" list if such an organization exists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's unrealistic that we add articles for all those villages (likely there isn't much to see in them, other than that they are picturesque), but we could at least add wikidata+markers+maybe even wikipedia links. I'd say it's a useful article, if one travels through France and wants to take a stop off the highway. If one knows about the article... -- andree.sk(talk) 10:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's a bit listy in its current form; it mentions a long list of villages but doesn't provide any individual description for each village nor does it explain why a particular village is notable or was chosen for inclusion. I think this could be a viable article, if it were expanded. K7L (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This feels a bit like the membership list of a marketing body. I know that there are some selection criteria, but I am not sure how tough these are, and I have not found any evidence of villages failing to get on the list - I think it is completely different from the UNESCO selection. It could be expanded to a useful article, but in its present form I am not sure about it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there's a membership fee (a set amount per inhabitant, according to the membership application form on the website) to be on this list, I'd be inclined to agree. We don't usually give free advertising to any specific tourism groups, do we? --Robkelk (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, make all the villages redirect to this article for now, & turn the redlinks in the article into listings with WP links where possible. If we later get more info on some villages, consider making articles for them. Pashley (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I like the idea of redirecting all the villages to this article. I'd prefer to redirect each village to the article about a nearby town, keeping the region structure/geography as our primary way of organizing destinations. A few of the villages already have their own articles, of course. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I would suggest we shift the focus (and possibly the name) of this article. I strongly agree with others that we need more articles like these, with suggested rural destinations. However, Robkelk makes a valid point. I think it's easy enough to tackle the issue of this list being a paid membership organisation. We can simply use it as a starting point, but add other picturesque villages as we see fit over time. To avoid problems we should probably rename it, though. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2018&oldid=4924059"