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

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 22:23, 6 April 2012 by 190.23.92.124 (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


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:

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.

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 ("~~~~").

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.

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.






January 2012

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)

February 2012

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)
  • Keep. There is no justification for deleting it. We have articles on other military-only areas such as Wake Island and on areas such as Mecca where travel is restricted to Muslims. Pashley 20:18, 12 February 2012 (EST)
  • Keep-ish. I don't know this base well enough to understand if it's large enough to warrant an article (if not change my vote to a merge), but the point has been made in the past that some Wikitravel articles might have a smaller, more specific audience than normal travel books, and that audience might include service members, scientific expeditions, or just people who want to read about a place they can't actually go to in person - see Wake Island for one existing example. If this base really is a small town that is open to military personnel only then it probably doesn't hurt to keep it around. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:28, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Redirect On Wikitravel policy grounds I think Bangor lacks what it takes to be an article. If you washed up at Wake Island and said "Hi, I'm not sure I Understand what made me Get in here but I'd like a somewhere to Sleep and something to Eat (subsection Budget)", there's a chance you'd surprise the military personnel (or appeal to their compassion) enough to get them. At Bangor, they'd just say "Sod off to Poulsbo".
I agree with D. Guillaime in that Bangor has as much interest as a college campus, which I guess makes it worth mentioning breifly. The presence of a TRIDENT submarine base may be interesting to note in the Kitsap Peninsula article but "submarine spotting" would be an individual "Do" entry rather than needing a whole article. The what is an article? policy states that information about attractions, sites, and events should always be initially placed into the article for the place they're located in, and only when that information becomes large and complex should a new article be considered, which is how I think the base should be categorized.
On a practical note: anyone with business on the base will be unlikely looking to Wikitravel for help to get around the base and anyone looking at Wikitravel will be unlikely to find the article useful or interesting. Wake Island is wierd and quirky and hence interesting. There's nothing particularly notable about a run of the mill navel base. Even Kitsap's own tourism website can't manage anything helpful to say about the base from a tourism perspective.Travelpleb 06:03, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

March 2012

Four Days in Newport, Rhode Island

  • Keep (for now). This one was tagged VFD by User:Jc8136 but not listed here (probably due to the horrid database problems the site is now experiencing). I don't think there is a justification in the current Wikitravel:Deletion policy for removing this one unless it sits at outline status for a year. That said, I've proposed a change to the itinerary article criteria at Wikitravel talk:Itineraries#Tightening the criteria for an itinerary article and would be grateful if others could comment on that proposal (not here though please, this page is for article deletion discussions). -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:25, 7 March 2012 (EST)
*Delete Ryan, thank you for this support, the database issues hindered me to add this vfd here. I vfd'ed that article because it is very promotional for certain local business and not really an itinerary. I think a proper article can stay but i think the editor just did it for marketing and one year free marketing is too long. Otherwise all spammers will start itineraries to avoid deletion. Jc8136 07:47, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

Special:Contributions/212.121.219.1

  • Delete all. This is unfortunately rather harsh, but temporary blocks and talk page messages haven't been sufficient to get this user's attention. User has created dozens of orphaned region articles in the past several days that don't follow the Wikitravel:Article naming conventions and haven't been discussed. Many duplicate existing regions (example: South Central Asia), and unless we are going to review them one-by-one and redirect appropriately these seem like they will cause unnecessary confusion and duplication with no real benefit. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:42, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Delete all. Jjtk 04:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Is a mass deletion really necessary? The person is learly trying to contribute and working in an area where our coverage is weak. Pashley 02:08, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure what else to do. Attempts to get this user's attention have failed, and as a result we've got around 100 region articles that don't follow the naming conventions, are orphaned, and duplicate existing regions. We can go through them article-by-article and redirect where appropriate, but unless someone is willing to take on that job then a mass delete seems like the only other option. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:19, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
      • Certainly not everything should go. Many of his or her contributions are like this, [1], helpfully adding the name in the local language and script.
      • Do orphaned region articles actually do any harm? If they are valid names, hence possible search terms, I'd say we should have them even if most should be redirects. If we cannot educate this user and get him or her to create those redirects (which seems to be the case, given the lack of communication) and no-one else wants to leap in and do it (which seems extremely likely), does it do any harm to have those articles in the meanwhile? Pashley 03:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
        • To clarify, I'm only proposing deletion of articles for which this IP is the sole author. If someone wants to redirect each of them appropriately then I withdraw the nomination.
        • To answer your second question, in the past there has been concern that duplicative region articles cause confusion. We no longer have a clear hierarchy and users don't know where content should be placed. Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy#Overlap is the "official" policy on this: "No two regions at the same level of the hierarchy should overlap". Similarly, that guideline notes that when regions are created "Use caution, consensus, and collaboration when possible", something that is not being done in this case. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:12, 28 March 2012 (EDT)


  • Delete all Sandy, over time we will have the trouble with double structures and loads of redundancies. I patrol Pakistan now for a couple of years and always someone starts with the creation of skeletons and leaves them empty. After a while some editors start to promote business in that articles (mostly restaurants and hotels) or question or general structure of Pakistan regions. Usually it gets pretty messy and after lengthy discussions we have skeletons en masse which require loads of time to patrol. The articles are created by an UK IP, so it is not a local who don't understand the system. I agree that same smaller edits like the Urdu phrases do make sense but the article skeletons need to be deleted. Jc8136 07:42, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
P.S. Most of the created skeletons had already been created in August 2010. At this time Globetrotter and Ryan deleted them because they didn't fit or regional article structure. I suspect it is the same editor just with another UK anon IP. Also the user started the typical Kashmir conflict in creating article "Indian administered Kashmir" which indicates his political intentions. Jc8136 07:49, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
For reference see the discussion here: User_talk:78.145.44.147 which started the same mess last year. Jc8136 07:55, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
    • Delete new articles Wikitravel's regions structure struggles to maintain clarity in several cases and this author is certainly not helping. These regional articles with no content are just confusing, e.g. Hyderabad_(district) was created and conflicts with the extant Hyderabad_(Pakistan). Some of this user's edits are helpful and should remain; they are at least worth reviewing. The new sub-regions, however, are not helpful and should go.Travelpleb 02:39, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

South Central Asia

See above. This one is just nonsense. I am hoping tagging it will get the user's attention. Pashley 02:11, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete It's just nonsense to create such skeletons. Jc8136 07:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

Coorg-Bylanakuppe

  • Merge/Delete. Seems to be started in good faith by a new poster, but it's simply about a monastery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the normal procedure would be to merge any information about the monastery into an article about the nearest village or town and delete this new article. Ikan Kekek 03:18, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Merge/Delete Full agreement to your proposal. Jc8136 07:52, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

Metro Manila Jeepney Routes

Northern Isaan

I think the breaking down of Isaan into sub-regions is unnecessary. I put the following to the Thailand discussion page a few days ago but no one commented, so this may get the ball rolling: Isaan, being an "overlooked part of the country" still has very little content in its sub-region articles. Would it be worth considering removing these subregions? At least until the Isaan article is so brimming with content that it needs to be burst into sub-regions (which is unlikely).

I'm using Northern Isaan as a test case. If it is approved for oblivion, I'll also nominate Central Isaan and Southern Isaan.Travelpleb 05:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

April 2012

Ypacarai

  • Delete According to our policy that places where you can't sleep, its need to be deleted. Jc8136 11:40, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
    • That's not a policy; it's a rule of thumb designed to distinguish communities (which get articles) from attractions (which do not, usually). Ypacarai is clearly a community, and the fact that its hotel is no longer open doesn't change it from being worthy of an article to being unworthy of one. LtPowers 21:10, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
    • I concur with LtPowers. This is not an attraction, it is a charming community. It would be a shame to remove it, thereby making more people leave it off a road tour around the lake. 190.23.92.124 18:19, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
feeds
Destination Docents
Toolbox
In other languages
other sites