Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2022

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← August 2022 Votes for deletion archives for September 2022 (current) October 2022 →

Waterfalls do not meet the criteria for an article and I couldn't find a suitable article to merge this to. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to a "see" listing in the state article. Pashley (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest merging and redirecting to Akwanga#See, where there is already a listing for these falls. They are about 60 km and a 1 1/2-hour drive from Akwanga. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. Pashley (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly also mention them in the state article, but I'm not sure if they are important enough. Pashley (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Merge or delete? I'm not sure – the waterfalls are already mentioned in Akwanga#See and we don't usually have redirects or articles for waterfalls unless it's so exceptionally famous and this is no exeption. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If any content was merged, a redirect is required, but I don't see any harm and only benefit in having a redirect for a waterfall. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Redirected. I think this discussion can now be closed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least some passenger traffic, it seems

Per the one-year rule for itineraries; there have been no edits article since 2018 and no human edits since 2014. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The one-year rule is mostly about personal itineraries: "just about any topic can be an itinerary". An itinerary along a river is not arbitrary, it wouldn't double city article content, and if it is properly linked it is easy to find. I assume there is passenger traffic along the river also for leisure travel. The Wikipedia article gives the impression that this might be a very interesting route, Commons have few images about traffic along the river, but the user who created the article seems to have trekked the Tiger Leaping Gorge, so I assume the itinerary wasn't created out of the blue. –LPfi (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this article doesn't have a single section that's "complete", except the lede per se and only has content about the Chinese part of the river, not the Thai or Burmese parts, and that isn't even half-complete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful here into Three Parallel Rivers National Park; the Chinese part of the Salween is one of the three.
I would prefer to delete this rather than redirect it. Like the other rivers, it has a different name here than downstream & it seems silly to have an "Along the Salween" for an area where it is not called the Salween.
Along the Yangtze River covers travel on the lower Yangtze & has a link to the park article for the upper reaches. I think any "Along ..." articles we create for the Salween or Mekong should follow the same pattern; cover the better-known & more navigable parts in SE Asia there, & link to the park article for the upper reaches. Pashley (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: It's been 14 days now and it seems there's consensus to delete. I'll delete it in just a moment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be (re)created by Basa Pulu Kokos who is (b)lock evading. I'm not 100% sure if 49.181.193.224 (talk · contribs) is a sock or not which is why I'm listing it here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Does this look like it was created by a Basa Pulu Kokos / Te Reo Ahitereiria sock to you? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm 100% certain it was. Their edits on the English Wikipedia are even more characteristic of this long-term abuser —The preceding comment was added by Graham87 (talk • contribs)
If you guys are certain, I think you can go ahead and speedily delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Deleted and IP blocked for 3 months. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace pages are generally not put up for deletion, but this one has to be an exception to the rule. The simple reason is because this page is an unaccredited copyvio.

This userspace draft first came to existance when our former encyclopedia article, American colonialism, was put up for deletion in September 2021. This was when Pashley copied the article from mainspace to their userspace, but the key thing to note here is it was copied without giving attribution, with their only edit summary being "copy to user space, perhaps salvage later". That is insufficient attribution at best, and wouldn't even be considered as "attribution" at worst. Either way, Pashley did not follow the correct procedures that comply with Wikimedia's CC BY-SA license.

Even if there was sufficient attribution, we run into another problem. That is, the page would be attributing a page that no longer exists. That could be fixed if we undelete the article, but it was deleted by community consensus.

So ultimately, I propose that this userspace draft be deleted because at best, this article is insufficiently attributed; anyone looking at the page history will automatically be inclined to think that all the work on this page was written by Pashley when it was clearly not. It could've been prevented if Pashley had correctly followed the procedure by moving this article to their userspace using Special:MovePage, without a redirect, but Pashley instead chose to improperly move the article using a cut-and-paste move. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's solve this by temporarily undeleting the page it was copied from and moving it to this page. User:Pashley, are you OK with that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already did that & therefore think this nomination should be closed as keep. Pashley (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Any objections? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per above.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This can be closed now as kept, but a note to Pashley: please watch what you're doing before enacting on something. You moved the talk page while moving that draft to your userspace, and even if it was an accident, you should not have moved the talk page without a redirect (that feature by default is turned off). I've reverted your move, but you are responsible for actions that you make. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries; there have been no edits since 2019 and no human edits since 2017. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German itinerary seems to be at guide status, so this should be viable and easy to improve for our German speakers. –LPfi (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inspiration can be taken also from the Eurovelo 9 route, which goes by this name. –LPfi (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a real & interesting route, see w:EV9 The Amber Route. Pashley (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Real places are no longer exempt from deletion, nor is it exempt because it's interesting. However, if we have anyone who's willing to translate the German Wikivoyage article as LPfi suggests (the de.voy article does partially go against the en.voy MoS which is why I did not do the translation myself), then I'm all for keeping it but please give policy-based reasonings for keeping it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this because there's simply no evidence that this town exists and like many other articles created during the Nigeria Expedition, could have been created solely for the purpose of winning points – except, this one seems to be a hoax. I've scrambled through various sites and here are the results I've gotten:

  • "Odunade" on Wikidata only gives one result, d:Q108583785, and that's about a market.
  • "Odunade" on Google Maps gives various listings ranging from accommodation in Ilorin, Kwara State to bus stops in Lagos, Lagos State
  • "Odunade" on OpenStreetMap gives zero results
  • "Odunade" on Wikipedia gives Wikivoyage as the first result from its sister sites column but the main result on WP is w:List of markets in Lagos
  • "Odunade" on a Google Search gives a market in Lagos

Either way, it's pretty evident that there is no place called Odunade in Kwara State, meaning this was likely created as a hoax, solely for the purpose of winning more points. I would honestly want to speedy this as a hoax but would like other opinions on this; I know deleting this would mean losing one hotel listing, but I'm relunctant to trust any info on that page. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hotel is in Ilorin and can be moved there. "Odunade" means "wood" in the Hausa language. The map in the article is centered on a location across from Ilorin airport near the "Odunade Events Centre" according to Google Maps -- looks like a semi-permanent tent set up for receptions and the like. But the article describes Odunade as a rural village in the administrative town of Moro, which is north of Ilorin. All that considered, it's possible that there's a community too small to show on Internet maps with this name, but there's nothing there. So even if it exists, we don't need an article on it. Given the ambiguity of the name, I don't think we want to redirect it, either -- not to Ilorin nor to Moro. Powers (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Unambiguous consensus to delete; therefore deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries; the article has not been edited by a human since 2018. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a map. If no-one adds one, you propose to delete and not merge/redirect the information already in the article? I wouldn't agree with that unless the relevant information is already in the relevant articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find Puzatsch, but otherwise the route seems possible to follow on OSM. I added a {{mapframe}}, but a topographic map would be much more useful. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the route added, as a crude approximation. I assume anybody taking the route will either have a good map and be able to make their own decisions on the best route, or rely on fingerposts and other route markings. I have no way to know what path is the best one (I haven't been hiking in the Alps). –LPfi (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination upon improvements by LPfi. Thank you for improving the article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination upon improvements by Doc James. Seems barely usable now. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2022&oldid=4924504"