Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2025

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← September 2025 Votes for deletion archives for October 2025 (current) November 2025 →

I can see that regardless of politics, it might make sense to redirect Gulf of America to Gulf of Mexico (not that I'm in support). However, I can't understand why we would have a redirect for "Gulf of America" in quotes. Why would someone type it into the search bar in quotes? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see a redirect from Gulf of America to Gulf of Mexico as unnecessary & a bit silly but harmless. However, I'd be inclined to add text in the Gulf of Mexico article along the lines of this in Persian Gulf.

"Persian Gulf" has been the usual term in English for centuries; this goes back at least to the Romans calling it "Sinus Persicus". It is sometimes also called the "Arabian Gulf", mainly in Arab countries.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unnecessary to even acknowledge such silliness. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a brief mention of Gulf of America to Gulf of Mexico is ok. A redirect may not be required unless the term becomes common, but a mention in the article will let a confused traveller search for it if US Government agencies have to use the term. Delete the current redirect with quotes. AlasdairW (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 13:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another cross-namespace redirect which I have replaced all uses of (except 1 in userspace of a banned user) with its projectspace equivalent. //shb (t | c | m) 01:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 02:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been sitting for more than ten months as just a list of major cities with no information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to a weak keep. //shb (t | c | m) 08:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help, but in my view, this gets to the core of the issue. From a traveler's perspective, the article still doesn't answer any of my core questions: where are the key sites? How do I get to them? Why do these places stand out over other old towns in Greece/Cyprus I could visit? Can I visit all these sites in a week or a month? Are there particular locations I should prioritize? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I think there's enough content already not to delete, ergo keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The car-free destinations article has a list of destinations which could potentially include many of the world's old towns. We should have general guidelines for the cases where international lists of destinations can be useful, and when they are just a burden. /Yvwv (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, they must be annotated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Old_towns#Destinations I find that it consists of dozens of links to articles with titles of the form "Old towns of ..." & currently those links are all blue. Checking the talk page I see that this arrangement was arrived at after extensive discussion. So now I question whether we should delete any of these. Pashley (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it’s properly cited. ~2025-28029-34 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "cited." There are no citations, as there shouldn't be in a Wikivoyage article per Wikivoyage:External links. This is another remark by you that suggests the use of AI, because why would a person actually make this argument? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
eh I guess they've now been banned. Worth ignoring this [2025-28029-34's] comment to whoever comes around to closing this nomination in three days. //shb (t | c | m) 23:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept. //shb (t | c | m) 00:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has also been sitting for more than ten months as just a list of major cities with no information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is very useful in the future. ~2025-28029-34 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this form. If you want to make it useful, do so or at least make a strong start in the next 5 days. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 00:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two more pages like the above nominations with no travel information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 04:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 06:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by a banned user (and later sockpuppet), and I believe the entire goal of the article is trolling. The article's only photograph is of Confederate flags, most of the text outside listings (all written by the banned user) is about the town's racism, and there's little useful here beyond listings and descriptions remarkably similar to those found on other websites such as Wikipedia and Google Maps. Additionally, on principle, I'd question whether any article entirely by an indefbanned user should be kept on the site. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 04:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's plagiarism, it should be deleted. Are you saying it's plagiarism? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least one full sentence and part of another is lifted directly from WP. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles this user created can be redirected or merged with existing articles, but I don't think that applies to this one. It's not capitalized properly, for one, and the article created doesn't provide any explanation as to why a traveler should visit. It reads like a translated Wikipedia entry. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maroontruths (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedily deleted as per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Abandoned stubs. It has been 8 days since the last meaningful edit and thus fulfills the criteria. //shb (t | c | m) 07:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Keibul Lamjao National Park, which basically covers the same lake with the floating national park in addition. So, merge its content to Keibul Lamjao National Park. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely not delete! I do not know the area so cannot tell if lake & park should be separate articles, or one redirected. My guess would be that a park->lake (particular part to more general article) redirect makes more sense than lake->park.
I'd like to hear from @Haoreima: who wrote much of both articles. Pashley (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The lake itself spans over a large area of natural sites and human settlements, covering shoreline regions of multiple towns and cities. On another hand, the national park is an independent entity with some of its geographical areas located under the jurisdiction of the lake. Lake >> National park, and not national park >> lake. Neither of these can be suitable to be merged into either topics. @Pashley Thanks for the reminder! :-) Haoreima (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is a lot of repetition between the two articles. How do you plan to avoid that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lake focussed topics can be kept only in the lake article and national park topics in the national park. Encroached topics can be trimmed as separate articles exist. Some unavoidable common themes can be kept as such. Please feel free to trim wherever necessary. :-) Haoreima (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps would it make more sense to combine them in one article but use section headers within to distinguish what's in the lake and what's not? //shb (t | c | m) 08:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: not deleted. There isn't consensus to keep or merge the two together, but there is clear consensus not to delete. Discussion for that can be held on the talk page if needed, though I would defer to @Haoreima:'s local knowledge of the place. //shb (t | c | m) 03:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another cross-namespace redirect to consider. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected. //shb (t | c | m) 03:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another XNR, could be an actual place name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirect target changed to Vigo. //shb (t | c | m) 00:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another XNR, could be the ISO country code for French Polynesia. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 00:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another XNR, could be the ISO language code for Greek. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too confusing, as it means "the" in Spanish. Might be best to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article is a stub and contains nothing. Maroontruths (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 02:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelt category name, for which Category:Khulna Division already exists, which currently redirects to Category:Southern Bangladesh as there's not enough destinations in Khulna and Barisal divisions of Bangladesh. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done – region categories not part of the breadcrumb hierarchy can be speedily deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 08:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelt category name, for which Category:Chongqing Municipality already exists. Though I have created the Chonqing redirect as a misspelling. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done – region categories not part of the breadcrumb hierarchy can be speedily deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 08:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A rather astonishing cross-namespace redirect (XNR). Should redirect to common scams or similar. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to touts. //shb (t | c | m) 02:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I supported a merge, but I think this is an outright AI fabrication. I've searched Google Maps around the nearby village of Banéfo-Mifi, and the only lake in the area is Lake Baleng, which is identified by the article as a different lake. Yet the description of Lake Mifi sounds like the actual description of Lake Baleng. The content sounds Chat-GPTish, so I suggest we delete entirely. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maroontruths (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's my impression (which could be wrong!) that many places in this region have multiple names, so "Lake Mifi" could be called "Lake Something Else" in another language/context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a point I hadn't thought of. However, I can't find it anywhere online. The thing is, there is only one lake in the area that fits the author's description from what I can tell of satellite imagery: Lake Baleng. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: general consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 08:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another case — this article isn't even clear on the name of the lake (Tissongo?), and if you look up that lake online, it's just a body of water. On satellite (blurry) it's not even clear there are any settlements and certainly no amenities near it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion at Talk: Lake Sanaga. Maroontruths (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 08:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unilaterally created subregion article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What policy does it violate? Maroontruths (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace redirect to WV:Welcome, business owners. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cross-namespace redirects are a bad idea in nearly all cases. Pashley (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They save keystrokes in edit summaries, but that doesn't make them a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that cross-namespace redirects are bad enough, so this soft redirect to another wiki is no good (What does "Wts" even mean?). JsfasdF252 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 05:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2025&oldid=5151622"