Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article. Learn how.

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel

(Redirected from WT:VFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.

See also:

[edit] Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following: 

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion. If you are unsure, bring up the issue on the talk page.
  2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
  3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.
  4. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel - images that are located on Wikitravel Shared must be nominated for deletion there instead.

[edit] Commenting

All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is: 

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why. If you are in favor of redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

[edit] Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article. However, if the image is being deleted because it has been moved to the shared repository with the same name, do not remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the shared repository.

[edit] Archiving

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

[edit] December 2011

[edit] How to buy a diamond ring in Antwerp

Page has vfd template, but I see no listing here. Article strikes me as borderline. Is it a legit travel topic or too far down a slippery slope? Pashley 19:27, 22 December 2011 (EST)

  • Merge to Antwerp. This seems like a questionable topic for a travel article and is one that will likely invite spam from jewelry shops. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:21, 24 January 2012 (EST)
  • Keep. I can see why you would question it, but since the diamond industry is so huge in Antwerp and buying them is such a primary tourist activity, I can't come up with a good reason why it can't be a travel topic. On the other hand, for those who are interested, it seems a good piece of advise. It sure needs some guarding to prevent spam, but that's true for many articles and shouldn't be a reason for deletion. We could just agree on the talk page that the article should contain no listings, or something. As an aside, I really think we should not welcome new contributors who are making good edits with a vfd. If such a nomination is needed, they should at least get a welcome and an explanation first. It seems that we just scared this one away :-( Justme 06:54, 25 January 2012 (EST)

[edit] Driving in the San Francisco Bay Area

  • Delete. What information is here should simply be merged into Bay Area, and although we do have a few other "Driving in _____" articles, they tend to be national in scale, with only one exception (below). -- D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Unless someone can come up with a reason why driving in San Francisco is really distinguishable from other U.S. cities, I agree with D. Guillaime --Inas 19:38, 8 January 2012 (EST)
  • Delete. If there are particularities (like useful radio stations), they can easily fit in the city article. Justme 07:03, 25 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge to Bay Area (California). The info about freeways and traffic should be in the region article, but for SEO purposes this is probably a useful redirect. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:22, 5 February 2012 (EST)

[edit] Driving in Los Angeles County

  • Merge (if any)/delete. Some of this information could move to the Get Around sections of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County, but I don't think an encyclopedic list of numbered LA freeways is too useful anywhere. This article had minor discussion on its talk page about its usefulness back in 2003/4, but only between two people and it never went anywhere. -- D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect. This is an old article that turns up in many searches now, so it should not be deleted per the "delete vs. redirect" guidelines. Merge and redirect seems like the correct approach. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:13, 7 January 2012 (EST)
  • Weak Keep. Possibly U.S. residents view this more objectively, but I think driving in L.A. rates as more than just transportation, and an overview of the freeways comes in handy for a first time driver there. The article itself seems to be more or less readable, and contains useful information to the traveller. --Inas 19:25, 8 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge and delete/redirect. There's not much here that's actually specific to LA (rush hour is more than an hour? people speed? slower traffic keep right? use a map or a GPS?) --BigPeteB 15:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge and Delete the purpose of a redirect should direct people to articles with pertinent information NOT just articles sharing names. Does our Los Angeles County article really have such great information about driving that a redirect would make sense? There is nothing more frustrating than links and redirects to articles that don't give the information that the redirect implies is there. If it is redirected, then those Google people who really want driving tips will be mad at our misleading redirect. No reason for us to redirect. ChubbyWimbus 06:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)
    • For those who are suggesting this article be deleted, I think Wikitravel:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting indicates that it should definitely NOT be deleted ("Redirecting non-articles, when possible, is usually preferred to deletion because a) anyone can make a redirect and b) redirects may help with search engine optimization."). If we are going to delete this article then the deletion policy should probably be updated to include cases like this one (namely, articles with SEO value), but until that happens I don't think a delete is appropriate based on existing policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:33, 12 January 2012 (EST)
I'm in favour of keeping, but since when does "redirecting non-articles when possible is usually preferred", equate to "policy indicates it should definitely NOT be deleted". Again, the policy is clearly written to guide people in voting and leading to a consensus. If people haven't read the policy, by all means point them to it. However, I think most people are aware that we prefer to redirect. If they have that understanding, but identify this as a case where we delete instead, then that is well within the bounds of the policy IMO. --Inas 17:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Turning your argument around, what in the deletion policy supports deletion of this article? It's a usable travel topic, so it does not fall under the deletion guidelines for outline travel topics. Beyond that, I don't see anything else in the policy that would support deletion, and so far people aren't citing the deletion policy in their arguments. The policies have been discussed to death and represent current site consensus, so in cases where there is disagreement it seems like it would make sense to rely on them to guide decision making. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[edit] January 2012

[edit] Monterey Bay

  • Delete. The Central Coast (California) region is principally subdivided by county. The Monterey Bay article is a hybrid that stretches across Santa Cruz County and the northern part of Monterey County. Anything about Monterey Bay can be covered just as well by the two county articles, and I see no good reason to duplicate it in a Monterey Bay article. The article just clutters the otherwise tidy subdivision of the Central Coast. Nurg 23:17, 7 January 2012 (EST)
    • And what do you propose we show someone who searches for "Monterey Bay"? LtPowers 15:22, 8 January 2012 (EST)
      • Good point. Ryan's idea is better - make it a redirect. Nurg 04:36, 11 January 2012 (EST)
  • Definitely not a delete - this could conceivably become a redirect, but I think a disambiguation page would make more sense. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:13, 8 January 2012 (EST)
It is probably another candidate for Texugo's meta-region article --Inas 19:04, 8 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, yet another. Keep Pashley 07:39, 29 January 2012 (EST)

[edit] February 2012

[edit] Mangrove Tour Langkawi

  • Speedy delete. This is a tour advertisement that should have been speedy deleted previously but was apparently overlooked. User:Felix505 tagged it with a VFD earlier today, listing here for completeness. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:38, 5 February 2012 (EST)
I stopped listing such things here due to previous hints not to. That individual has been spamming the Malaysian articles pretty determinedly, some of it goes back a while and has taken some excavation work to undo, there maybe some more hiding under IPs. -- felix 14:15, 5 February 2012 (EST)
I listed it here per Wikitravel:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion: "New pages that are plainly spam and that qualify for speedy deletion will be deleted as soon as they are noticed by an administrator, and therefore do not need to listed on the votes for deletion page. If such a page remains for more than 24 hours, add it to the nominations page as a way to ensure that it isn't overlooked.".
While the article in question seems like a clear speedy delete, since it's been on the site for three months it seems best to put it through the normal VFD process. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 5 February 2012 (EST)

[edit] Image:Thai-english-subtitles.jpg and Image:Thai-english-subtitles2.JPG

  • Delete. These are both orphaned images of Thai script that I'm guessing may have been uploaded at a time when browser support for non-English characters was less prevalent. Per the deletion policy there is no reason to keep orphaned images that are not likely to be re-integrated into an article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:50, 5 February 2012 (EST)

[edit] Image:F1170019.JPG

[edit] Image:Stav Elena.JPG

[edit] Image:Saintmalo---350px.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and being only 350x163 and of such poor quality I can't imagine it would be likely to be re-integrated into any article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

[edit] Image:Prairie2.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a prairie dog in the Belfast Zoo. Given its small size (216x150) and the fact that the Belfast article now has other, more travel-relevant images, this seems unlikely ever to be re-integrated into an article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

[edit] Image:Jaipur3.JPG

  • Delete. Recognizable individuals with no model releases provided. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

[edit] Image:Vancouver-districts.png

[edit] Image:BambooBar Style.JPG

[edit] Image:Map tokyo districts.png

  • Delete. Orphaned map image that has been superseded by maps currently displayed in the Tokyo article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

[edit] Bangor (Washington)

  • Delete. Bangor is a closed military base, not a city of its own, and cannot be visited. It certainly fails the "can you sleep there" test for everyone but military personnel on orders. -- D. Guillaime 12:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
    • It's too bad; it's a nice little article. =( It sounds like military families might have reason to visit, is there any way we can justify keeping it? LtPowers 21:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
  • Delete. The description reads like every U.S. Navy base anywhere. Of course there's a Navy Exchange, a commissary, and several fast food chains. Most of the article's real content is just a description of how to get in and around. And as pointed out, it is only relevant to Navy personnel and families. -- BigPeteB 09:35, 10 February 2012 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion"