|
Votes for deletion
If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article. The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page. Nominating[edit]Add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually hosted on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons. The basic format for a deletion nomination is: ===[[Chicken]]=== Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~ Commenting[edit]All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is: ===[[Chicken]]=== * '''Delete'''. Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~ When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~"). Deleting, or not[edit]
Archiving[edit]After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, 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). When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. First, describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion, with something like "archive as kept". Then add a line for the result to the discussion on the archive page. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then the nomination should be mentioned on its talk page. Generally this is done by providing a link to the deletion discussion on the talk page. One should also indicate the result on the talk page. If the discussion is short, an alternative is to place an (identical duplicate) copy of the discussion on the talk page. See also:
|
 |
December 2024
[edit]Not an itinerary. No edits for more than a year. Badly formatted. No information that isn't already in the articles for the three cities listed. The article's creator added a bunch of text that was possibly copyvio from some commercial enterprise, and hasn't contributed to Wikivoyage in the last year. Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Salerno, Paestum and Amalfi#Copy of Votes for deletion thread, closed a year ago, with nobody satisfied with the article as such, but with differing opinions on how to proceed. After closure, the article was cut down to what belongs in an itinerary article, but nobody has taken an interest in developing it and there is little hope the original author will. The page should probably be deleted as a useless personal itinerary, unless content was copied to other articles, in which case it should be redirected to the region. –LPfi (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the 1-year rule, or at most, merge to Salerno#Go next as a suggestion of 2 places to visit from there, but that doesn't seem necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just checked the histories of the Salerno, Paestum and Amalfi articles, and so far, no content has been merged from this embryonic itinerary article to any of those articles, so at this point, it wouldn't be necessary to keep the title as a redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, delete. LPfi (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just checked the histories of the Salerno, Paestum and Amalfi articles, and so far, no content has been merged from this embryonic itinerary article to any of those articles, so at this point, it wouldn't be necessary to keep the title as a redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the 1-year rule. Any chance this might've been created by a Lucky04 sockpuppet? It very much reads like it. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong region of Italy and more combative, too, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, yeah, true – I don't remember Luchy working on southern Italy from memory. @A09:, your thoughts on whether this is a Luchy sock or not? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not a match from my perspective. Wrong region, no immediate abuse of machine translations, and different prose style. I’m indifferent to whether delete this article or not. A09|(talk) 06:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sweet, good to know. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not a match from my perspective. Wrong region, no immediate abuse of machine translations, and different prose style. I’m indifferent to whether delete this article or not. A09|(talk) 06:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, yeah, true – I don't remember Luchy working on southern Italy from memory. @A09:, your thoughts on whether this is a Luchy sock or not? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong region of Italy and more combative, too, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I've given User:Dongtingchun 10 days' notice on their user talk page that this non-Wikivoyage-style presumably copyvio stub would be nominated for deletion, so I duly nominate it. If I knew where it was copied from, I would have summarily deleted it, but I don't think there will be any keep votes for this. Of course a real article about this city would be welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete – this isn't even an article; I would more or less speedy delete this as it is entirely out of scope. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's for a city of over a million, just a totally wrong format and style for a Wikivoyage article and presumably copied and pasted from somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It has potential, but definitely not in the way it currently stands which is content that belongs on Wikipedia, not here; I think it's more or less better for anyone to just start the article from scratch than work with this where we don't even know if it's a copyvio or not. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why I nominated it for deletion. I'm just saying the topic is definitely not out of scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably where our policy gets into a grey area, but I consider Wikipedia-like articles such as this one, even if it can be revived into an actual article, to be no different to some article with the title of a real place filled with spam or vandalism. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like copyright violation, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it is a copyright violation it should be treated as such, i.e. deleted. If not, I think some Wikipedia-like outlines (or stubs with some resemblance of one) could be seen as good-faith starts for a real Wikivoyage articles.
- In this case, the Wikipedia-like (to be) subsections of Understand resemble Taierzhuang, which has the template and tries towards travel information but is written in a too encyclopedic style. I assume they share a tradition, and that also this one is a good-faith try – possibly with wordings too close to the used sources, but not necessarily so. I think we should not speedy delete it, but try to communicate.
- –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter if it was created in good faith or not, an out of scope article is still out of scope. Readers frankly don't care what goes on behind the scenes. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "try to communicate"? What do you think I did? If you think you somehow are more likely to get any notice by the person who seemingly abandoned this stub, try your magic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hanyangprofessor2:, is User:Dongtingchun one of your students? Can you have a word with them? STW932 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, thanks for your posting on their use talk. I got carried away with later comments here, by others. Still, I don't think we need to delete this speedily, unless we find concrete evidence of a copyright violation. –LPfi (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accepted, but is this the first time you've made this kind of comment? I don't remember for sure, but my deletion nomination statement and the links in it really say it all. I clearly didn't call for summary deletion without a vote, and any idea that I haven't tried to communicate with the article-starter - well, you already said you were sorry about that, but try not to make this kind of statement again in a similar situation, and thanks! Best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @STW932 Yes, they are are. Sadly, they are one of the students who skipped most of the classes, skipped almost all deadlines including numerous ones where they should work on their draft(s) and ask me for feedback, and since it is the final weeks they seem to have remembered they need to turn in the assignments. Sigh. I'd ask for this to be moved to their userspace. I also want to preemptively apologize - some students like this will be making bad edits in the next week or two. Please speedy userfy anything that looks problematic, if possible. I will try my best to deal with this on my end, but there is only so much I can do when students ignore the syllabus and skip most classes then try to learn how to edit wiki in the last week or two :( Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yikes, that's a bummer. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing, Hanyangprofessor2: If this is copyright violation, it should be deleted, not moved anywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Of course. But is it? I'd rather expect an AI generated stuff (output of going to Chat GPT or such and telling it 'write me an article about Foocation for Wikivoyage', sigh) rather than a copyvio (the times are changing...). Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing, Hanyangprofessor2: If this is copyright violation, it should be deleted, not moved anywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yikes, that's a bummer. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like copyright violation, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably where our policy gets into a grey area, but I consider Wikipedia-like articles such as this one, even if it can be revived into an actual article, to be no different to some article with the title of a real place filled with spam or vandalism. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why I nominated it for deletion. I'm just saying the topic is definitely not out of scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It has potential, but definitely not in the way it currently stands which is content that belongs on Wikipedia, not here; I think it's more or less better for anyone to just start the article from scratch than work with this where we don't even know if it's a copyvio or not. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's for a city of over a million, just a totally wrong format and style for a Wikivoyage article and presumably copied and pasted from somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- AI text, by its nature, can include copyright violation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Ikan Kekek. Ground Zero (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Two barebone outline articles created by El-hussain14 (talk · contribs) when they seemingly went on an article-creation spree on Nov 17, 2024 – almost a month has passed since and they have seemingly left Wikivoyage (but apparently active on hawiki + incubator – which really only goes to show that they don't have much regard for Wikivoyage). The state of the article really just makes it easier to nuke + start afresh if someone wants to make it into an actual viable article. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete.I don't see the need to discuss deleting articles that qualify as article creation vandalism. The article creator put no effort into creating the articles. We should not take up contributors' time discussing deletion. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to change my mind on this. Since they are real places, they should just be redirected to the region article without discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair; I do prefer deletion since it is much easier to start an article from a redlink than an already existing redirect were someone new to create this article, but I'm also completely happy with a speedy redirect – or really, anything that isn't the status quo – which is leaving these articles in its sad state of despair. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Go ahead and redirect if you like, but are these places going to be mentioned at the redirected article? If not, deletion would be better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. These have nothing worth saving. If they should have articles, then it is better to create city bullets with redlinks in the region article, with one-liners based on Wikipedia. That would tell more than what's now in the articles, and the articles are significantly easier to create from the redlinks than from redirects. –LPfi (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- We also probably don't want articles on local government areas, but on the corresponding towns or whatever. Let somebody who will work on the region (or on the actual destinations) decide what to have articles about. –LPfi (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- These are valid arguments for deletion. I was only proposing redirecting as a faster route to resolving this. Ground Zero (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- We also probably don't want articles on local government areas, but on the corresponding towns or whatever. Let somebody who will work on the region (or on the actual destinations) decide what to have articles about. –LPfi (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. These have nothing worth saving. If they should have articles, then it is better to create city bullets with redlinks in the region article, with one-liners based on Wikipedia. That would tell more than what's now in the articles, and the articles are significantly easier to create from the redlinks than from redirects. –LPfi (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Go ahead and redirect if you like, but are these places going to be mentioned at the redirected article? If not, deletion would be better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair; I do prefer deletion since it is much easier to start an article from a redlink than an already existing redirect were someone new to create this article, but I'm also completely happy with a speedy redirect – or really, anything that isn't the status quo – which is leaving these articles in its sad state of despair. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to change my mind on this. Since they are real places, they should just be redirected to the region article without discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)