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

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 22:10, 11 April 2012 by Wrh2 (Talk | contribs)

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)
This one is a more tough call than usual between keep and redirect (but it definitely should be redirected, rather than deleted). I'll hop off the fence to help close the entry, though, and go redirect per Travelpleb. It looks like the bigger problem here, though, is that Kitsap Peninsula is heavily over divided into little hamlets, which would be better amalgamated into bottom-level region articles. This makes it harder to see where to where this content should be merged and/or redirected. --Peter Talk 11:37, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

March 2012

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)


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)

Three days in Berlin

  • Redirect to Berlin. Has been more than a year at outline status, which per the deletion criteria is enough to subject it to deletion. The content that's there is already in Berlin, so no need to merge, but a redirect (rather than delete) probably makes sense for SEO purposes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:39, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Romanian Sampler Tour

  • Delete. Has been more than a year at outline status, which per the deletion criteria is enough to subject it to deletion. There doesn't appear to be any content suitable for merging. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:41, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Visit United States in 30 days

  • Redirect to United States. Under the revised Wikitravel:Itineraries criteria this should not be a standalone article, and I don't see anything in it to merge. A redirect seems harmless enough as I suspect there is probably some SEO value in keeping this around. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Two months in Eastern Europe

  • Redirect to Eastern Europe. This "two months" article covers only days one through three, and I don't see anything in it to merge. A redirect seems harmless enough as I suspect there is probably some SEO value in keeping this around. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:53, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

One month at Southeast Asian beaches

  • Delete. Itinerary article that remains at outline status (without any content that seems merge-able) after one year, and is thus subject to deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:20, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

One month of Southeast Asian diving and culture

  • Delete. While this is marked "usable", it appears to simply be an an outline. It doesn't look like there's anything to merge, and since it's been more than one year since the last substantial edits this article is subject to deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:22, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Nine days in New Zealand's South Island

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. There doesn't appear to be anything that needs merging. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:25, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Munnar to Kodaikanal

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. The pictures may be merge-able, but the text content does not appear to be. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Kochi-Valpara-Palani

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. The pictures may be merge-able, but the text content does not appear to be. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:43, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Back Roads and Beaches Bike and Multi-Sport Route

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not received a substantial edit in more than one year, and is thus subject to deletion. There might be a sentence or two that could be merged to Lorain County prior to deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:45, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools

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