Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2022

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← September 2022 Votes for deletion archives for October 2022 (current) November 2022 →

To put it this way, this is not a travel article, this is an encyclopedia article with a few editors' opinions. It currently has no travel content in it for the last eight years, and I'm struggling to think what will even make this article travel-related. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A clear failure of WIAA. The Soviet Union article only mentions the CIS in passing. A short paragraph on the commonwealth could be added to the end of the 'History' section of that article, and then the CIS article can go, by merging and redirecting if content is reused, otherwise by deletion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If CIS had developed into something like the European Union, and if the article had developed into a travel article over the last 8 years, there would be justification for the article. But neither has occurred, so this is more like Organization of American States, ASEAN, African Union, and NATO, none of which have articles, just redirects at most. Wikivoyage should not host would-be encyclopedia articles. Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CIS is travel relevant in that its citizens are treated as a group in several countries for visas etc. Any links (about half a dozen from mainspace) should be checked for not relying on that article. –LPfi (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information for people travelling on passports from CIS countries to other countries should be in the articles of the destination countries. There is no need to duplicate it in this article (not that this article provides that information any way). Ground Zero (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There might be a "travellers from CIS-countries ...". But OK, citizens of those should know they are, at least if we spell the abbreviation out. There might also be something special about travellers entering from CIS-countries, in which case the countries should be told explicitly. I don't know whether there are such cases. –LPfi (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Soviet Union article. I think that's the most logical thing to do. The dog2 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Soviet Union article. Maybe to a section there with content merged from here. Pashley (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Soviet Union article. There isn't any useful travel information in this article, and the SU article won't provide any sites related to the CIS that readers can visit, but this seems like the path of least resistance. Maybe we will learn that Wikivoyage should not try to be a gazetteer, but focus on travel articles instead. Ground Zero (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the advantage to not deleting this non-article? I'd tend to support deletion, but I'd like to read a travel-based argument for not doing so. OK, LPfi gave one, but it seems like a thin reed, though not something that would be best redirected to an article about a defunct political entity. Anything else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It affects visas & is a possible search term. Pashley (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But how does redirecting it to Soviet Union address visas? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could redirect to Soviet Union#Aftermath, mention the CIS there, list the countries and add some comments on the relations between those countries. I think that is travel relevant for the SU article and would be meaningful for those who searched for (or clicked) CIS. –LPfi (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Exactly. I'd be really surprised if a traveller looks up our Soviet Union article to find the visa requirements for Belarus. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember back in the day, Nickelodeon did a show called "Global Guts", where they featured a team from the "CIS", which was a combined team of a few former Soviet countries like Russia, Ukraine and Georgia. Someone who watches re-runs of that show could potentially search for the CIS, given that they were competing against the US, UK, Spain, Germany and so on. The dog2 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? Is that what Wikivoyage is to be? A reference for people who watch re-runs of TV shows? Why don't we focus on being a travel guide? Maybe we need a clearer mission statement so we can clear out the clutter being added that makes us look like a weak imitation of Wikipedia. Ground Zero (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that I think it's a reasonable search term. Re-directing to the Soviet Union article is the most logical thing to do in my view because the CIS was formed from the ashes of the Soviet Union. Some older maps from the 1990s actually labelled the former Soviet Union minus the Baltic states as the "CIS". The dog2 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The term pops up in travel literature, even in our articles, so it needs an explanation. A redirect and good content at the target avoids the need for explanations where we want to use the term. I think Soviet Union#Aftermath works well as such a target. –LPfi (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect. I think that this is term that a reader may find in paper travel guides. Somebody who reads a newspaper article on visiting Kazakhstan may come here for more information on the Commonwealth of Independent States. If we delete this article then they may end up in Commonwealth of Australia or one of the other article or redirects with Commonwealth in the name and be confused. AlasdairW (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As is stated above in a different way, my concern with deleting this article outright is that there could be international travel/visa related concerns that a CIS article could address. It does not appear that the current article covers this, however. I'm not sure I agree with redirecting to Soviet Union as the constituent states of the two states are/were not the same. I'd prefer to delete the article unless someone adds international travel information to the article during the nomination period. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't all the CIS countries former Soviet republics (or something de facto similar)? The Soviet Union is relevant for all the CIS in any case. That some other countries broke away without joining the CIS is irrelevant for the relevance in my opinion – but relevant for the discussion on the CIS. –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policy has always been "don't delete real places", though I see the wording on the policy page has (unfortunately, in my view) been toned down. Current policy is at Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting.
The CIS is quite real; it affects visas & is a possible search term. Deletion should not even be considered. Possibilities include ignoring the putative problem on the (dubious) assumption that someone will eventually fix it & (correct) assumption that in the meantime it does no harm, expanding it into a real article (volunteers?), and redirecting. I much prefer the latter. Pashley (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope – the policy was changed at the start of this year, so the "don't delete real places" is no longer current. The current policy can be interpreted differently; whether you choose to interpret it as "we try and favour redirecting" or "all deletion nominations of real places are exceptions" is up to you, but that's wholly irrelevant to this deletion nomination because this is not a real place (and I've used bold because you really need to take the time to read the policy). Claiming that "[d]eletion should not even be considered" is completely against the spirit of a wiki – anyone, and I repeat, anyone that is not (b)locked can make a deletion nomination if they think it's not suitable to remain in mainspace.
As for why your statement, "it does no harm" is astoundingly untrue, read Ground Zero's last sentence, "Wikivoyage should not host would-be encyclopedia articles." Tell me who's going to search up the CIS for whatever visa-related reason and I'll be convinced. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I support redirecting it to Soviet Union#Aftermath. It's not ideal to redirect a current international organisation into a historical entity but it would be easier to briefly add information on how the CIS impacts the visas of these countries there in one section. Once the section becomes lengthy, the CIS article can be recreated with information that's more geared towards travel. Gizza (roam) 07:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Looks like there's consensus to merge this to Soviet Union#Aftermath. Would anyone like to enact this? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)10:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any good reasons not to think that the work here was written by the infamously banned ArticCynda? With the exception of one edit by Gizza, all other edits on that page were by 87.74.196.200, who seems to have edited the same range of articles AC did (i.e. minority regions of Russia and Tyrol). The IP also geolocates to Somerset, only a few kilometres southwest of Bristol, where AC's IPs usually geolocate to. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have also created nine other articles. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This account edited those areas plus Bristol, which is well-explained. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm not alone into thinking that this IP has been misused by an infamously banned bigot, I'm now listing the other nine articles they've created:

I know some of these articles such as Finkenberg are good usable articles, some with a byte size of over 10k, we cannot let someone simply evade their block and community ban. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deletion on this basis, yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would support deletion if these articles had been created last week, but I don't see any value in deleting them two year later. The blocked user won't get the message in the way that they would doing it the next day, and the reader is not helped by articles disappearing for no obvious reason. AlasdairW (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By keeping the banned user's work, we're essentially sending a signal that their contributions are welcome. On Wikipedia, any article that was created by a banned user, no matter how long ago, whilst block evading is speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G5). We don't speedily delete such articles, but by deleting it, the message to AC remains clear: they will not get away with block evasion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have had another look at these articles, and found that AC edited the WP article of several of these places at around the same time. I have struck my vote as a result. In this case I am ok with deleting the articles, but as we have had articles for two years, ideally clean new articles would also be created - many have articles in German which date back over a decade, and so should be ok to translate. AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ttcf: how does it help travelers to delete these articles if the content is good and usable? Sucks to have a gross bigot on our site, but if he wrote something useful, let's use it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It helps because we are not rewarding a block-evader. If we allow block-evaders' articles to remain on the site, we are encouraging them to continue to block-evade. Isn't it obvious? And note, he wrote this after he was permanently blocked. No-one is seeking to delete the articles he started before he was blocked. Maybe you'd like to do some research and restart the articles he began after they are deleted. That would be useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that put the traveler first? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It helps the traveler because we're keeping a bigot that put demonstrably false content in articles banned. Are you suggesting that we should stop banning any users? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Is there false content in these articles? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the issue. If he can start articles after he's been banned and they stay up, he's effectively not banned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this were so binary, then there would be no discussion. I did not write anything about ignoring bans being good, I wrote that since the traveler comes first, then we should prioritize what will help travelers the most. I do not think that deleting this content will help travelers. How will it put the travelers' needs first to delete? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Address my point. The point of banning users is that we then no longer need to fact-check their work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did address your point: I explicitly answered your question. You, on the other hand, refuse to answer mine. I brought up ttcf in my initial post: How does deletion put the traveler first? Now you are discussing some fact-checking which is news to me and also brought up in my initial comment as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Ikan here, but the simple answer is, it doesn't. We may cite ttcf as the site's main interest, but ttcf is a guideline, not a policy. When we deleted all of Grace789's work earlier this year, we did lose some travel content, but was keeping the content worth it? FYI: this was a user who created so many low-quality articles solely for the purpose of winning points in a contest. Unfortunately, 40% of their articles had been confirmed and speedily deleted as copyvios, while around 50% had listings that were just blatant violations of WV:OUTSIDE. The remaining 10% had useful content, albeit short. Were we going to keep the 60% because 10% of their work was deemed useful? A bit of discretion is needed when making a judgment of ttcf. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: "ttcf is a guideline, not a policy". It's literally a policy. "The core underlying principle of Wikivoyage is that it is written for the benefit of travellers. The question "what is best for the traveller" should always guide decision making." Again, I assumed if the content is good and usable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Yes, the traveler comes first, and in this case, that means by keeping a racist from editing. See Wikivoyage:User ban nominations: "User bans are put into practical effect by using a Mediawiki software feature to block edits to any page (except pages in that banned user's user talk namespace) by the banned user." Your version of this would in effect add the proviso "But if the banned user evades the software, they should be allowed to get away with it if it takes [insert arbitrary amount of time] to discover the evasion and no inaccuracy is apparent." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you folks are going to allow a banned anti-Semite who called the Holocaust the "defeat of the Jews" to ban-evade with impunity, I'm fucking out of here as an admin, because then there's no goddamned point to user bans. Your choice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing in favor of someone being allowed to get around a ban: he's banned and banned with good reason. @Ikan Kekek:, how are travelers to Fügen helped by us deleting this usable guide? Who would come here looking for information about this destination, find that we had information about it that we deleted, and think, "Wow, I'm definitely being helped"? I am not proposing any change to policy. If someone robs a bank and then gives the money to a children's hospital, you don't take medicine from the children, but you do stop that person from robbing the bank in the future. I can't believe that I have to clarify this, but no one here is advocating that anti-Semitism is okay or that anti-Semites who otherwise make good content should be allowed to have some edits be okay, but just the bigoted ones not be: users who spread vile hate should be blocked. But if they have already contributed useful information to the travel guide and said information does not include their hateful prejudice, then it doesn't help anyone to remove it. If a user here who has been constructive for several years all of the sudden goes on some vile rant about a minority group, we wouldn't retroactively get rid of the good things that person added to free knowledge and culture. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any articles with usable content, at least Lermoos & the two rated usable on the above list. Redirect the others. Pashley (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pashley: Please give a reason for why we should keep a bigot who wrote a ton of antisemitic comments' work (and I'm guessing you've tried very hard to blatantly ignore Ikan Kekek's comments above)? Please don't give your classic bullshit reasoning of "[p]olicy has always been 'don't delete real places'" when there was unambiguous consensus to allow real places to be deleted earlier this year. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys who want to keep articles started by a block-evading racist (and by the way, not just an anti-Semite - read the userban threads about him) have some kind of proposal on how old the articles should be for us to fucking annul our policies on userbans? Try to at least suggest some coherent policy that doesn't result in the effective lack of a userban. Is "retroactive" deletion OK if we discover the block-evasion after a week? A month? 3 months? 6 months? A year? two years? Really, fuck this. But at least try to state something other than "fuck it, we shouldn't 'retroactively delete' any article started by a banned user if the article is 'OK'." Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And again, note that these articles were all started after his userban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those of you who weren't here for the years of fighting with and about W. Frank/Alice should read Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive to get some feel for it, but you should be aware that letting trolls who produced a lot of good content create a horrible working environment resulted in the departure of several admins who were great long-time contributors and are still missed. The whole point of instituting procedures to block and ban users was to eliminate the kind of fight we're having now. Which is why I say, if you want to effectively give up user bans, I'm outtahere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did we burn Mein Kampf because who wrote it was evil? No, humanity preserved it to teach others what not to do. I propose we move these articles to purgatory to teach block evaders. Furthermore, Wikivoyage is a place for travel information. Is it a place to argue over writers and to exhibit extreme cancel culture? No. It's where people go to gain insight and learn info about areas. Who cares that Newton was a horrible person? He did great strides in science. 134.255.241.135 08:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to enumerate the contributors I'm alluding to, so anyone who wants to inform themselves can look at their contributions: User:Peterfitzgerald, User:Jc8136, User:Cjensen~enwikivoyage. I feel like I'm leaving someone out; maybe another old-timer will remind us of who. And whoever didn't sign the last message, I have nothing printable to say about it except that this is a travel guide, not a place for Mein Kampf. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the anon, please keep discussions on-topic. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a travel guide. It is not a place for arguments over the writer of articles. We should keep the pages and judge based on content, not writer. Do we judge people by their personality or religion? We judge them by their personality, otherwise we're just as bad as the guy we're arguing over. I struggle to see how any analogy is off topic; outside insights are important. 134.255.241.135 08:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArticCynda, I presume. Yes, we judge you by your racism and the demonstrated falsehoods you contributed. Bug off! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ArticCynda. I am not racist or false; i am an immigrant myself from a immigrant mother. An analysis of our writing styles should set us apart. 134.255.241.135 08:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not being ArticCynda nor being an immigrant does not mean the contributions of a community-banned bigot can stay (FYI: I say this as an "immigrant" in the context you mention. The point is, your real-life situation should have no prejudice on this discussion). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They can stay, just hidden behind an endless path of convoluted links leading to all sorts of backstage machinery. We should keep the data, but in such a way it won't meet the public's eye without enough archival intrest coming up. I have never lived near or been anywhere near Bristol, except maybe on the motorways. The north is a much better region. 134.255.241.135 08:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To everyone who !voted keep, I question why you all think the English Wikivoyage should be one of the standalone wikis that allow keeping the work of banned users. AFAIK, the only two wikis that I'm aware of who keep the work of block evaders after they've been banned, simplewiki and zhwiki, have a hard time dealing with the work of content-related LTAs because they're essentially welcoming them. In this case, I question why we're letting someone who wrote blatant antisemitic content in mainspace and has always responded to that with a politician's answer (and never formally gave an apology for it). To reiterate, my standpoint on this issue is keeping the work of banned users gives a signal that their contributions are welcome and that will never change. If we're allowing this to say, that indirectly implies that we're giving up on userbans, and like Ikan, I'm also outtahere. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of deleting useful content, and I tried to read this discussion with an open mind. I am more uncomfortable with letting a banned user flout our ban. AC was banned for a very good reason. He should not be allowed to edit here. A ban is a ban. Delete all his work. If someone wants to recreate these articles without using his contributions, they should do so. I don't think that "keep his articles and hope that someone fact-checks his work for falsehoods and hate speech" is a valid position to take in this discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, let's remove all their work from the public eye. I am fine with hiding it behind a convoluted path of links no average member of the public can navigate, but not entirely removing the data. History is very important, no matter how bad it is. 134.255.241.135 08:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(A quick interjection: please note that the above anon obviously engaged in vandalism: 1, 2.) Vidimian (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks for blocking them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that their edits in these articles are from 2020, and that User talk:87.74.197.32#Conclusion is of October 2021. Between their ban and that time they tried to make good contributions to get the ban lifted. Are there any more recent edits by them? Otherwise I think they finally accepted the fact that they aren't welcome any more, regardless of what they contribute. In that case there is not really any need for further measures – I don't think there is any info in the listed articles that we should distrust. –LPfi (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, "[a]re there any more recent edits by them?", check out User:SHB2000/IPs which has a list of all IPs used (that I'm aware of) by this user after June 18, 2022. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LPfi, who do you think IP user 134.255.241.135 in this thread was? Mother Teresa? We didn't accept "good contributions" from him at any time after he was banned, and he has never stopped socking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear whether 134.255.241.135 was AC or an impersonation attempt because this IP geolocates to Girona, Catalonia and AC also never claims they are not AC, but those edits were still contributions made in bad faith and AC has socked countless times after October 2021. None of that changes why ArticCynda got banned in the first place: adding racist and antisemitic bigotry in mainspace. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, keeping these articles sends a signal that their contributions are welcome, defeating the purpose of a userban. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I haven't been following closely since then, and I don't remember the chronology. However, the comment in this thread could have been made by any troll (I think I recognise the style, but I don't remember who it is). –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The user in question has been banned for some time, so if we're going to enforce the ban, we have to delete these articles. If we keep these articles, it appears to me that we're admitting that we aren't enforcing bans that were enacted by consensus, and we're opening the door to more sockpuppets, banned users, and vandalism. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The fact that these articles were created AFTER the ban as someone stated above should make this pretty simple. Looking at the article history shows that the content is also from the same user (rather than an article being created by the vandal but the content being from others, which might complicate things), so it seems very clear. The fact that it's 2 years may indicate a part of the userban process that was overlooked at the time, but "if we don't notice something immediately after ban, it stays" is not sensible policy and just opens us up to "if 2 years is okay, what about 1 year? 6 months? 14 days? Maybe a 'userban' should just mean retiring the username" discussions which only water down userbans to the BENEFIT OF VANDALS. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a persuasive "counter-argument," but there really isn't a valid counter-argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you want from me: you're just making some wild accusation that I'm a Nazi sympathizer because I think the traveler comes first and we shouldn't delete useful information. I can't use reason to reason you out of an unreasonable position. If you want to think I'm an "enabler" of something other than writing a travel guide by encouraging others to write a travel guide, then I can't control that. I in no way enabled or approved of anyone's bigotry anymore than I enable all of the activities that you do off-wiki or approve of your lifestyle and beliefs. What, in principle, do you want me to say to curry your favor? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing. You've made yourself clear, and I've drawn what I consider to be the obvious conclusion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer my question: "What, in principle, do you want me to say to curry your favor?" If I found out that User A turns out to be a crappy boyfriend and writes useful travel guide work, do I "enable" his bad relationship skills? If User B posts Nazi memes on another website and writes useful travel guide work, do I "enable" memes elsewhere? If someone does something other than writing good travel guide work and I only approve of the travel guide work, how am I "enabling" which groceries he buys or his favorite color or literally anything other than his good travel guide work? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want you to "curry favor." Let's try this once more: How is your argument different from the argument that he should not have been and should not be banned? Do you think he should have been and should be banned? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your first question. Based on my understanding, as someone who was not involved int he case, yes, he should have been banned. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Clear consensus to delete. Given how I started this nomination, I don't want to provoke a COI conflict, so does anyone else want to take the honour of deleting these articles started by a block-evader? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The ten articles are deleted. –LPfi (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most redlinks can probably remain; there is no reason not to recreate the articles (I'll remove a few Go next and similar). However, most of the articles are linked from Tyrol, which assumes the articles exist. The current region structure is probably mostly made by him, but also other editors have been involved. I just reverted to the version before his edits, of 3 June 2020, but some content should probably be salvaged. Please have a look. –LPfi (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like most of the region structure was organised by AC using IP addresses. I restored a Go next entry added by Ypsilon, but otherwise I agree that all edits were due to be reverted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume also 178.255.156.181 was him (globally locked as open proxy; edits 2018–2020 are on this theme, do we have other IP editors interested in it?). Some of their edits were reverted, but I didn't check whether all of them were. If we have somebody who knows the area, the structure should probably be looked over and the region section rewritten from scratch. There are some valleys broken away, probably because somebody has written a lot of articles on them, while there is a giant North Tyrol. I don't think the structure is coherent. –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say 178.255.156.181 geolocated to Carinthia which is nowhere near Bristol but it's an open proxy. So per the w:WP:DUCK test, it looks like an open proxy misused by ArticCynda (likely them per the similarities in edit summaries, editing behaviour, and subject of interest). Either way, I'm coming to the idea that Tyrol should be indefinitely semi-protected for two reasons, even though this is supposedly a travel guide that anyone can edit:
  1. To prevent AC from block-evading;
  2. To prevent hastily judging any innocent IPs that are not used by AC.
It's clear that Tyrol needs a major overhaul – it's a shame that this has gone undetected for three years, but I don't think we can let this loose. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another encyclopedic municipality article that's clearly out of Wikivoyage's scope. All the relevant travel information is already mentioned in Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier, both of which are categorized under North Shore (Quebec). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Informed Veillg1 on their talk page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no response from Veillg1; consensus is to delete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consists of description copied from Wikipedia. JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text was copied and pasted on July 12, and it is the only edit from that IP address. There is little reason to expect further contributions. The article is not about a town or village, but about a mountain range. I tried to see if I could find some travel information to add, but it really requires some knowledge of the area to find useful content. There is a hotel of the same name, but it is in Katmandu, not in the mountain range. Ground Zero (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LPfi, you're right, we could move and redirect this term, if there's any useful information to add to any existing article. Though since this is all from Wikipedia, anyway, I guess why bother? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least kind of. I rewrote the page today (October 2) but almost all of it is from dewiki to prevent a SEO penalty. I'm still undecided, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it has been altered to prevent the SEO penalty, it was started as a copyvio and is still basically general information rather than a travel guide. The information that is travel-related seems to be the part that says climbers don't even climb here. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was copied from Wikipedia, but it was attributed by URL. A permanent link is preferable, but how many but me use them for attribution? Thus I wouldn't call it a copyvio. It is useless and should be deleted, but I don't think one should delete it less than a few weeks after improvements were suggested. Who knows, the user might have watchlisted the page with their account. –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Special:PageInfo/Ganesh Himal, there are zero users that have watchlisted the page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They could still have bookmarked it, in their browser or as a note on their fridge. I don't believe that's the case, but it is not good manners to delete during a (perhaps one-sided) conversation. –LPfi (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After improvements by SHB, I am not sure it should be deleted. It does no harm as extraregion and if somebody knows any places around there and want to add info, it would become useful. Thus, I am now neutral on deletion. –LPfi (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't know anymore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I think I'm now in favour of redirecting this to Himalayas (Nepal) and give it a passing mention that climbers don't usually climb here. Does that seem like a feasible solution? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. Spending a lot of time trying to save this article doesn't make sense unless we have someone with local knowledge. Ground Zero (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Merge if it has anything useful for travel (I see nothing) then redirect. Pashley (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to Himalayas (Nepal)#Q3095116 with a one-liner mentioning that climbers don't climb here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries, unclear scope, and simply lists a bunch of locations without descriptions. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: the consensus is to delete. I've tried to abstain deleting articles that I've nominated myself, but given no-one has done so, I'm going to have to delete this myself. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason given by Sbb1413 on 17:56, October 9, 2022:

Not useful without any bluelink.

As it's not in the criteria for speedy deletion and as it's objectionable, I've converted this to a vfd. For my part, I !vote delete. Disambig pages without any bluelinks are certainly not useful. If someone creates an article for either one of these two settlements, I may change my opinion, but for now, I stand by my !vote. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main page links to this - from Bungmati and Chanderi. I think that these are aiming at different places, hence this disambig. These should be updated if this page is deleted. AlasdairW (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries; lacks a clear route, overly encyclopedic, and the only content that is travel-relevant are the destinations listed (again, it lacks a clear route). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could certainly describe the route in more detail (what prevailing winds and current should be considered? are there problematic seasons?), but if you go be own vessel, you would adjust to current and forecasted weather, and otherwise you would probably fly between the listed destinations. The route was well established and we don't need to pick a certain variant. This is not a personal itinerary without a clearly defined route, where you wouldn't know what route it tries to describe; the route is certainly well-known enough – although not marked – not to be covered by the one-year rule.
Deletion should be based on whether somebody developing the itinerary would be better off starting from scratch and whether we do the traveller a disservice by offering this outline itinerary.
–LPfi (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not comparable, because there is a clear route to the Cape Route, which is a recognized historical route. Anyway, I think we all understand that you believe this article should be deleted, but most of the rest of us don't agree with you, and it would be good for you to see why. Come to think of it, it's past the time to close this thread. Any objection to closure? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I and GZ have obviously been outvoted so I will close it per policy; my point still stands, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is a historically significant route that is well-known, and Vasco da Gama was one of the great European explorers. But if we really want to be nitpicky, I would not mind re-naming this to "Voyages of Vasco da Gama". The dog2 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realiae this is going to be controversial, so I'll keep it short. Namely, it's and outline article eligible for deletion per the one-year policy and there's not a lot of travel content in it; in fact, the only travel content is the time it takes. It does have an understand section, but it's overly encyclopedic and a traveller can learn the exact same thing about it by going to the encyclopedia. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, we can discuss things more in the talk page for the article, but it really makes no sense for Cairo to be part of the itinerary, since the city didn't exist in ancient Egypt (right?) and certainly was not the capital of the Pharaohs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't have the w:en:WP:Twinkle gadget installed here, then it's pointless to have a copy of the Template:Twinkle standard installation template here. (This template is meant to be transcluded into the template documentation for maintenance, welcome, and warning templates, in the hope that template editors won't change the template in ways that Twinkle can't cope with. No Twinkle = no need to worry about what Twinkle thinks about a template.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: All six templates speedily deleted as an unaccredited copyvio. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2022&oldid=4924279"