Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2022

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← March 2022 Votes for deletion archives for April 2022 (current) May 2022 →

Stubs by Tesleemah (talk · contribs)

Listed articles:

These are stubs that don't even have the adequate section headers required for an outline and do not help travelers. They were created by Tesleemah before they left the site because they were blocked for 31 hours due to copyvios but they have left these articles. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- this we can call "page creation vandalism". Ground Zero (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Without evidence, I wouldn't call them vandalism, but they are useless. If the places are worth articles, then link them from the region article and add coordinates etc. there, but that can be done as easily without these skeletons, as there is no information in them except the name and region, and we need more than that to judge whether to list them. –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: All deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles copied internally without attribution by Grace789 (talk · contribs)

Similar reason as with OTim and Paulboht. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several articles that consist mostly of text copied from other articles (cell phone info, Stay Safe, Eat, Drink) and from Wikipedia without attribution (Understand), with the listing for the headrest airport copied from another article. They don't have any unique travel information that is specific to the town, e.g.,

If someone wants to turn these into travel articles, we could keep them. But as they stand, they are of no use to travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should be deleted per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ogume, and Nteje (by Paulboht). Note that these don't represent all of the articles these users created, but only some of them. I think that these are articles that they created and did not get around to expanding before the competition ended. Ground Zero (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that rings true and is a down side of timed competitions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah unfortunately it's a sad truth. I feel like maybe I've now gone too harsh with the copyvios (which did leave a user leaving), but unfortunately copyvios are a legal issue so it's important for us to cleanup the copyvios. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clean up yes, but that can be done by tweaking the wording (some work of course, so cutting down instead often makes sense, sometimes to the point of deletion), and in case of free content such as from Wikipedia, simply by adding the attribution. –LPfi (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to be safe than sorry – deleting is cheap, and easy to do while copyediting takes some work, and we have other priorities than copyediting copyvios which are not improvements to the travel guide in the first place. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is no use, then remove it if course, or delete the article if there is nothing else. But if the information is relevant, deleting instead of adding an attribution to Wikipedia is less than ideal. If copyediting is much work and the information of doubtful value, then yes, do something else instead. But that is not about being safe or sorry – both are safe solutions legally. –LPfi (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, a good whopping forty percent of their articles have been deleted as copyvio, because either they have been copied off Wikipedia word-for-word (making it a copyvio and out of scope), or what worse, copying it from other websites that are not freely licensed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information in Etim Ekpo was indeed useless and the wrong tone. In Etim Igbo there was a history section from Facebook (with info you'd look up in Wikipedia) and a connect section removed by Ground Zero without comment. Was that info a duplicate from somewhere else, a copyvio or removed as not reliable? If it wasn't specific about this location while still speaking about "this city". If the content is mostly non-relevant (as those Understand sections) or unreliable (as presumably the Connect), rewording is not worth the effort. I support deletion for articles that haven't had information added (or checked and rewritten) by others. Articles that are useful and have been cleaned up, such as Abba, should be kept. I don't support blanket deleting because "it's cheap" for articles written (or cleaned up) by others, which now include reliable and useful information, even if they have had similar problems otherwise. –LPfi (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It was agreed on Wikivoyage:Nigeria café that all the connect sections would be blanked, because they were all copied nearly-word-for-word, breaking the license. In most cases, as @Ground Zero mentions, Grace seems to have copied listings from other articles – in some cases, it's obvious, in others, it's hard to know where and she has been inactive since March 9 (last edit on enwiki) so we cannot expect a reply in the meantime. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Abba is not a useful article too. The airport listed is in Asaba, and as we discussed and concluded, detailed information about an airport should only be in one article. The other is a market which is unusually in the correct article, but is out of scope – why would travelers want to get household equipments? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: you can see from User talk:Grace789 that this contributer was frequently warned about copying text, and adding listing to articles that were not in the places covered by the articles. Sometimes they were hundreds of kilometres away. After the warnings, thuis behaviour continued. This contributor seemed for more interested in accumulating a lot of edits than in helping to create useful travel articles. Cleaning up after Grace789 was very time-consuming: I apologize if occasionally I forgot to explain the clean-up. Ground Zero (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. Cleaning up after such a user is often more work than it is worth, so just deleting everything may be an appropriate route. If the clean-up has already been done, then deleting is a pity. For the one edit of yours, I trust your judgement, but unless redoing your work I depend on your comments to form my own opinion, that's why it is a bit frustrating when edit summaries are lacking. In some cases the real reason for deletion of a passage is something difficult to say in public, but edit summaries do help a lot. My Firefox suggests summaries I have used in the past, which helps when doing similar edits on several articles. –LPfi (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: All articles listed by GZ deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All articles created by Grace789 (talk · contribs)

I have been spending the last couple of nights cleaning up this user's articles, and unfortunately, while all of these were created in good faith, unfortunately, none of these are useful for our project, because in addition to my previous deletion, I am proposing to delete all of their articles. About a whopping forty percent of their articles have been deleted as copyvio and there's no good reason not to suspect the other sixty percent is copyvio free not to forget the listings that were copied off other articles. Therefore, I propose to delete all the articles listed below:

It's such a pity to have to do this because I do recognize that they have put in a lot of time and effort in putting travel content, but ultimately, the traveler comes first – these copyvios and duplicated content don't put the traveler nor the project first. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn Nkpor per your comment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The listings from Barnawa should be transferred to Kaduna. I haven't checked other articles. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's a sad truth that this user has potentially caused more harm to travellers than good because it's really gotten to a point where we have no idea what's actually accurate, and if it serves the traveller. Markets – sure, they can be useful if they're in the correct location, but most often not. Similar with places to eat, and to Grace789, if you're reading this, I'm sorry to break it to you, but unfortunately that's what you've done and I do apologise if that has caused offence.
It's also interesting to note that in Mando (Nigeria) the two listings are at least 129 km (80 mi) away per google maps, the market probably because it contained "Mando" in it and the airport isn't really surprising at all knowing Grace789. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, all. I now agree with deleting them all, including Barnawa. In my attempts to coach Grace789, it was clear that their desire was to add content, regardless of its quality or accuracy. I don't think it is a good use of time to try to figure out if listings are accurate or not. Ground Zero (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it is one major downside to having prized competitions. However, does that include Nkpor though? I'm inclined to want to delete that too. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: All deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps have a look at Talk:Cannibalism for some context – but basically, it really gives a bad impression on our readers. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally inappropriate topic. If we have a policy against sex travel topics, we're going to tolerate a topic on actually eating human flesh? The mind reels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment on the talk page. --Ypsilon (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Any possibility of a speedy delete by acclamation? I'd like to delete this topic as soon as possible (not tonight, but maybe tomorrow)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ikan Kekek and @Ypsilon, please also see WV:UBN. I'll be travelling for a week from tomorrow, so I won't have time to do the blocking and et cetera, but it's quite clear the user who created it is not acting in good faith. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is anyone benefitting from this travel topic, and if there is, I am not sure we need to serve them. It can be read for entertainment, but actually going on an itinerary or choose places to visit based on this article (combining fairy tales, disasters and religious practises) is not realistic. There might be subjects that are not felt to be in good taste, but still shouldn't be censored, but I don't think this article serves travellers in any way relevant for their travel. I think it can be speedy deleted, but let's keep the discussion unclosed the normal time, which I think would satisfy the norm of keeping to procedure. –LPfi (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is April 1st. Perhaps this is someone's idea of a joke; it might even have been done in good faith, though with bad judgement. I'd say leave it up for the rest of today.
Tomorrow it should be out of main space; we certainly should not wait two weeks. There's a good case for speedy delete, but I'd say it obviously a bad joke so move it to Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense without a redirect. Pashley (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pashley It's really not a joke, because the user who created it; Q788771's username is off d:Q788771, which is the Wikidata item for a "group of American pioneers who cannibalized their own family members in order to survive". See WV:UBN for a bit more details. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe that the nomination of this page for deletion was not made in good faith. The user making the nom is the same who removed from the bad joke page the "Eat" suggestion that "All the towns have fast food places, but one enterprising fellow from Clones was a pioneer of slow food. Alexander Pearce devoured eight fellow-convicts while on the run in Tasmania.". Yes, that's actually from a real article about a real place, County Monaghan#Eat, and is part of the valued, everyday travel advice being dispensed by Wikivoyage. No joke, and it's not the only place that Wikivoyage does this sort of thing – although this is the only "Eat" option presented to the traveller for this destination. A search for "cannibal" or "cannibalism" finds almost a dozen Wikivoyage destinations for each of these terms.
I realize that it's 1 April and there's an article featured on the front page suggesting the voyager board the RMS Titanic, a ship which is as doomed as doomed can be. That has to be a joke, as every story from Futility Or The Wreck Of The Titan (Morgan Robertson, 1898) onwards has this majestic vessel meet with misfortune. Nonetheless, if the likes of County Monaghan#Eat is being reverted from the bad jokes page with rationale like "not deleted and what Alexander Pearce did about 200 years ago is not nonsense (yes, he was a cannibal and ate his fellow convicts)" that's a fairly clear stance by the administration of this project. Yes, it's a valid food source, even if most of the references in text are historical (200 years ago? what if the voyager is looking for a hamburger today?), literary or otherwise somehow distanced from what the visitor would encounter if they were to dine in County Monaghan, Ireland today.
I'm not adverse to moving this to Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Cannibalism if the nearly two dozen other references to cannibalism in actual, existing real Wikivoyage destinations are also moved there. (Maybe some angry vegans want to take a bite out of me, who knows.) On the other hand, if the position of Wikivoyage is that cannibalism in individual destination articles is "not deleted... and not nonsense" we need to be consistent here. Perhaps this nomination, given the established positions from this same user, is itself the 1 April joke? Q788771 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hardy har har. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not April 1 anymore. Any objection to archiving this nomination early? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me. The article creator has been heard, which I think is the most important thing in not closing the vote early. –LPfi (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having been deleted and really constituting nothing but an April Fools joke in poor taste, there was no longer any live issue for discussion; archived accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. And personal itineraries are not allowed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it has too much information for it to be really good to delete it. I also don't care whether an itinerary is "personal" if it could be helpful and describes a reasonable route. I looked at Google Maps for route information. It's not all direct, but there's a certain logic to going uphill, then downhill and repeating the process. I'll say this, too: If a decision is made to delete the article, we should check first to see if any of the content should be merged to the articles for the various places mentioned in it, including their "Go next" sections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I'd say the Understand isn't complete and the route isn't described in detail it seems to me it provides enough of a base for planning your own itinerary (given the itinerary as described is viable). If various Get in and Get around sections on the regions and cities involved cover the route and describe the attractions, it might even be detailed enough as of now (I did not check them, but I doubt). The rule on personal itineraries is for those that stay in a shape where no one can reconstruct what the itinerary really is about, and those that are redundant with just listing the attractions in the cities involved. –LPfi (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – not yet at usable status, as it's missing a "Get in" section, but has lots of useful information and seems like a promising itinerary article to me. I always thought the phrase "personal itineraries" referred to articles that listed a bunch of attractions in a single destination, not articles about actual itineraries from Point A to Point B with several stops in between. Note that, for instance, Hong Kong to Kunming overland is listed at Wikivoyage:Itineraries as an appropriate title for an itinerary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would support moving the title to merely Chiang Mai to Chiang Rai in line with our standard for itineraries not to mention time spent traveling in the title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule, and unfortunately lacks useful content. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree that it lacks useful content. It has some background information, an itinerary and a map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It needs some rewriting. Kedarnath mentions some of the same waypoints and says the roads are bad, which should be mentioned. The Panch Kedar itinerary tells you to drive, but obviously you cannot do that by your own car, as you continue by foot and bus, never return, but then are still told to drive another leg. I assume you could get some local (taxi) to drive you, but that should be explained before the itinerary can be described as useful. One can develop the itinerary by some research and guesswork, which can probably be done in the two weeks, accompanied by appropriate warnings. You can probably get more information on the route locally, so somebody actually going might be able to use the article and complete it afterwards. –LPfi (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe this would be better as a travel topic? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outcome: Kept per lack of consensus to delete, without prejudice to the question of whether to convert it to a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Diemen's Land was renamed to Tasmania in 1856, which is about a good 166 years ago – it has been called "Tasmania" longer than it has been called "Van Diemen's Land". Its usage still lingers around a bit, but almost never used in a travel context. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it has a great history section, unfortunately, it has no travel content except in the § Get in and this can be nominated per the one year rule for itineraries. Much of this content could just perfectly do fine in a Wikipedia article. Could be merged in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park.

As another note, as someone who's done several US NRTs, I do not think they meet the "notable itinerary" criterion. They are no more well-known than pretty much most itineraries one could find. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure anymore that it would be bad to keep this article. It has important background information, a map and a photo of the trail. I'd say don't delete, but a merge to Big Island would be acceptable - but I mean merging "Understand", "Get in," the thumbnail and either merging the map or substituting this link to a map. I think that would mean giving the trail its own subsection in Big Island#Do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Big Island. I'm currently on the Big Island and have walked portions of this trail recently, the trail passes through private property and land sacred to native Hawaiian people that are closed off to visitors making it almost impossible (and illegal) for a tourist to walk the trail completely. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It is probably not possible to hike the entire trail now, but five sections (if I understand correctly) are open. I assume you could want to do those sections as one itinerary, with some driving in-between. If merged with sufficient information, it will overwhelm the current sections of Hiking and camping and Hiking destinations. This is not a personal itinerary by the definition of such: "arbitrary articles that aren't collaborative. While everyone can agree on what should go in [...]", "just duplicate content". It is quite well-defined, so adding content is easy, easier in an article with a standard layout than in an odd subsection, which should be breaked out anyway if made usable. @Tai123.123: is the description at the linked pages erroneous? –LPfi (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which linked page? Do you mean the National park service one? Also I'd like to draw attention towards Ala Kahakai Kaloko-Honokohau Trail, an article on a specific part of the trail that should be merged into the page if its kept. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect there. I didn't know about it. (And yes, I meant the official site). Most of the article under discussion here is Understand, which fits well in that one, and the rest can be included as a Nearby-type section. –LPfi (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think redirecting to one specific part of the trail is good as the other sections of the trail are so far away. Tai123.123 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who search for the trail should be happy to be directed to a leg that can be hiked, and after the merge, there would be information there also on the other legs – not much but as much as we have. A redirect to the island is much less use. –LPfi (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Sorry for late response) But there are other parts of the trail that can be hiked and we have content on for example I walked the 1871 trail in Puʻuhonua o Hōnaunau National Historical Park which is listed in do, I'll write a mock up of what I think an Ala Kahalai section in the big island article could be like soon. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been up for way longer than the guidelines recommend. Shall we archive this nomination in favor of keeping the article and discuss where to redirect it further on its talk page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created a year ago and is unused. The documentation page is also full of redlinks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't know that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not anything released, but anything that meets the threshold of originality. Trivial edits, and possibly complicated edits that would be made in the same way by anyone in the industry, are not covered by copyright and thus don't legally need to be attributed. Copying (substantial parts of) content under copyright requires having a licence from the author, and the term of the licence, including attribution, should be followed. This is obscured by us contrafactually regarding the wikis as collective works. –LPfi (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the listings in the article are in Port Harcourt. And the banner picture is of a swimming pool in Port Harcourt. PH is 40 km away from Dagema, and has its own well-populated article. Ground Zero (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother! Atibrarian, any comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a similar reason that Ground Zero gave for the nomination for Degema, except the only things listed are two airports, both a considerable distance from Rumuokoro. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's 14 days now, and given this nomination is very similar to #"Airport articles" but instead the nomination for a single article and it can be safely assumed that those that want the "Airport articles" to be deleted would also want this to be deleted, and those who want to keep the airport articles will also want this to be kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Airport articles"

Toro, Onna, Okpella, Apumiri, Nkporo, Omoku, Iboko, Dass, Warji, Shira, Darazo, Giade, Zaki, Gamawa, Tafawa Balewa

I'm proposing a mass deletion of articles that were created with only information about an airport in a neighbouring city, or airport information plus standard text about buses and taxis being available. Articles that provide no information about the city are not useful to anyone. -- Ground Zero (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's really not worth cleaning up these articles because ultimately in the end, a reader shouldn't be carried away with false promises and a new user is much likely to start a new article than creating one from a redirect and leaving it in its current state violates TTCF and WV:AIRPORTS. I think these can be speedily deleted under "No useful content or test" or "Copyright violation" (if the listing was copied off another article). I'll be away next week and won't have access to Wikivoyage, but I will keep this in mind when I come back. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As always, it would be better if contributors expand these articles so that we don't delete them. I'll withdraw the nomination for any article that has useful travel content added to it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of policy is that only really major airports get their own articles & none of these seem even close. Pashley (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now see that the section title is misleading. These are not bogus "airport articles" but town articles which contain nothing beyond airport information. Policy is "don't delete real places" so we should either keep or redirect these. Pashley (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pashley, there is always an exception to policy and these ones do not help travellers. If you've been following what these editors have been doing, they have been adding unrelated airports with content duplicated, breaking the CC BY SA license and unless you've been doing what several of us including GZ has been doing for almost five months now, you'd realise that cleaning these up is worth not the effort. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pashley, if you'd like to recreate them afterwards and turn them into real articles, please do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No chance of that. This is not a region I know or usually edit in & I have not been following the controversial editors. My opinion is unchanged, but I am quite willing to be overruled by those who know more.
Ideally, I think there should be some things in region articles along the lines of:
Small towns in the region include Toro, ... . These are all accessible by road and several have airports, but none have much to interest travellers.
Given that, a user who searches for "toro" gets a result. The redirect is therefore unnecessary. Pashley (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you want to recreate articles with that kind of content, that's up to you. The problem here is that people from Nigeria who might have been in a better position to say something relevant about these places didn't seem to actually know anything about them and put either nothing or a bunch of plagiarized garbage in them, just in order to "create" the largest number of "articles" to win a contest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And some of these places might be worthwhile travel destinations, so naming them to say they aren't interesting risks misleading readers. If we know or assume a place is interesting, we can add or keep a redlink in the region article, but let's not say anything about them unless we know something. (And they don't have airports, the articles just told about the nearest airport, which may be far away, and is mentioned in the region article anyway.) –LPfi (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: All deleted. The reason one keep vote doesn't seem good enough and there's an overwhelming majority in favor for deleting, and with much better arguments for deletion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. While it has lots of info in the prepare section, it's not really unique to the itinerary. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Should the relevant content, though not specific to that article, be merged and redirected to the currently very bare Grande Randonnée article or some other article about hiking? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That works, as the Grande Randonnée article has nothing but a list of redlinks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that might be reasonable. Clicking on a link in that list to find just what there now is in the article is disappointing. However, I think the current content is valuable when somebody is to add content. A working solution might be to remove the links from the current list and have subsections on the trails for which there is some information. When a real article is created, that article could be bluelinked from such a section, with a summary left there. –LPfi (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles copied internally without attribution by OTim75 (talk · contribs) and Paulboht (talk · contribs)

I haven't gone thru a full list of these articles, and I should make it clear that I am not proposing to delete all of their articles, but just the articles internally copied. As these were internally copied without attribution, they basically remain copyright violations as they break the CC BY SA 3.0 license and therefore I propose we speedy delete any article on sight created by these two users as copyright violations are not allowed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick scan, it looks like they are copying from WP, & violating the license by not giving attribution. Why not fix the attribution instead of deleting? Pashley (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, it'd be ideal if we could just attribute and then it complies with the license, but not all of the articles they created were copied off the encyclopedia. Some of the articles they created were internally copied without attribution breaking the license, and some were just copied off external sources some of which are copyrighted. We don't need a duplicate for the most part, and we don't lose any travel info. But some of both their articles they created don't have that issue, and therefore I'm not proposing to delete those. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at OTim75's contributions, it seems they did attribute Wikipedia. All articles follow the same pattern: "article created" → "Added content. Part of content is copied from wikipedia [X] article" → "added content", "added content", "added content". It seems each article was written in 10–15 minutes (sometimes with a break for the night or for the day. This implies they haven't been searching for sources, but used the same ones. It also, of course, implies they haven't been writing their own texts, but copied rather directly. Anyway, the originals should be easy to find, and if they are free, attribution is easy to add, if not, that material can easily be removed. Thus, the question is simply whether these articles are worthwhile in current shape (for a traveller or as a basis of adding more information). Looking at Ilala, the article indeed looks useful. There are problems: e.g. Ilala and Babaloma use the same images (including a wrong-aspect pagebanner). Checking whether some of the information is copied from articles not directly related and thus possibly wrong (cf the Nigerian mobile phone operators) will take some work, but if we can trust the information, checking, fixing and tweaking probably is a lot easier than writing those articles from scratch. –LPfi (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, that's not the case with Paulboht tho. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I'm not mistaken, there needs to be a link in someway or another that attributes the original text to be compatible with the license. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I try to always include a permanent link in the edit summary when I use any significant amount of info from Wikipedia, my impression is that that isn't that common. A "from Wikipedia" (without link) is quite common. Of course, some do rephrase, and in that case copyright isn't necessarily involved. Anyway, we can include the attribution in a later summary or on the talk page. Do you know from where else the content is copied? –LPfi (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases, there has been text copied from other Wikivoyage articles (Get in information, and cell phone stuff), usually without any changes to reflect that it is about a different place. I have deleted that in many cases because there is no point repeating it. It is better to put a "see another article" link so that when the text needs updating, it can be done in one place only. Ground Zero (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: LPfi's comment above: Credit should be given to the sources of content that's paraphrased, too. That's the academic standard of citation, and I always do my best to mention where I'm paraphrasing from, or even where I got information from that was simply locations on Google Maps and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's what I try to do too, and it's also good for verifiability – which isn't necessary for us, but useful when doubts arise. Still, that's about good manners, while copyright is about legal requirements. –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an actual deletion nomination. I suggest this be moved to the talk thread, as there is no "delete" or "keep" action with which to conclude this thread, which is way overdue for archiving as a VfD thread. SHB2000? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to archive it, but there seems to be consensus to just delete any article found to be copied from somewhere else on sight. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but what is your point? We can't just leave this thread here forever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, just to get consensus to speedily delete an article that appears like it was copied from somewhere else if it were created by one of these two users. Anyway, I'll archive this just in a sec. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think my idea of moving this to the talk page (I mistakenly typed "talk thread") was better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's stubby and has no useful travel content in it. It's also remained as it is for almost two years now. Happy to withdraw it if some travel content is added, but the article cannot stand the way it currently is. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's the solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree that we should now merge it to Golden Week holidays in China. I wasn't aware that we had that article when I first nominated this, but it's a much better solution than deleting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it described attractions and traditions in their own right, we wouldn't be discussing its deletion. But if there is no-one willing to add such descriptions, the redirect is better. Ground Zero (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to archive this as kept, pending someone deciding to either do the merge and redirect or enlarge the article. I'll simply archive this later if no-one else takes any step. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that's edited nearly the entire phrasebook (all but two of my edits - one adding a vfd tag and the other being a category fix) may be a sockpuppet of the indef blocked and globally locked Basa Pulu Kokos / Te Reo Ahitereiria who we cannot trust their quality and reliability of phrasebooks. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also arguably, most travellers won't need this phrasebook for a similar reason that Graham87 mentioned in Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2022#Pitjantjatjara phrasebook and as Arnhem Land is not a tourist destination, and even if a traveller does go there, they do not need to use Yolŋu – they can get by with English. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second reason has not won the day in discussions of phrasebooks for languages like Cornish. Of course we should delete this if there's no way to determine its reliability. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Similarly, you don't need the Maori phrasebook, but given it's likely accurate, there's no reason to delete it. However, when we don't know how accurate a phrasebook is, and when it's not necessary to have a phrasebook, deleting doesn't do much damage to the project. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted on the basis of Ikan's comment plus what we agreed on user ban nominations a few months ago. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template calls the Exchangerate template with the currency parameter set to SKW but the Exchangerate template doesn't support the SKW currency, so it won't work. The template is also unused. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what this article is about, nor does anything in the article make sense – is this a city district, is this place dual named, or a twin town. The airport listing is a violation of WV:AIRPORTS and the university doesn't seem to have much interesting points of interests for ordinary travellers. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a local government that includes the towns of Itas and Gadau, see w:Itas/Gadau Tai123.123 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving the title to Itas-Gadau to avoid the appearance of being a city district of Itas. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some of it seems copied without attribution from Wikipedia, making it a copyvio and the rest of the content is in a similar situation to the other "Airport articles" nominated for deletion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Itas and Gadau are separate towns - I have added markers to the map. There is a local government area Itas/Gadau, but we could move the article if it is kept. AlasdairW (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2022&oldid=4924714"