Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2016

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← November 2016 Votes for deletion archives for December 2016 (current) January 2017 →

Per the credibility concern noted on the talk page and the fact that since it was created there doesn't seem to have been much progress made on this, compared to the other articles started at the same time.

Nomination as article originator, from alternate account. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the cryptid material was reformulated in a way as to mark it as "fringe" I may be more inclined to keep it, given that rare-wildlife is an area of serious biological research. That said an article on Rare wildlife that's known to exist (even if rare) might be more acceptable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that the article could become a magnet for cranks as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cranky edits can be reverted. As for the Cryptozoology article, I think it's fun and the topic isn't treated as if it were science. The only thing that bugs me about it is the title, but we can discuss that at Talk:Cryptozoology. I see that I found the name OK when it was a change from "Cryptobiological travel". Anyway, if you have a better suggestion, that talk page is the place to make it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Fringe phenomena ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N.B.: the original title was Paranormal tourism. Powers (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would still rather have this deleted as I do not want even the appearance of this wiki supporting unscientific mumbo-jumbo (and debunking it is neither our core mission nor likely to win us many friends in some corners of the web that like to try and vandalize wikis) but I guess the harm will be mostly minor and I do not want to stand in the way of what everybody else seems to agree on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's any appearance that we're supporting mumbo-jumbo, why can't that be solved with appropriate edits to the article? We needn't debunk everything to not seem to support it, right? Isn't there a way to thread the needle? "Haunted house" tours are very popular in some places, so they're a reason for travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I do understand Hobbit's concerns. On the other hand, there are likely travelers interested in this topic too, both people who believe in ghosts and such and people who check out places for the lulz (for instance, what would Loch Ness be without Nessie, or Area 51 without all the UFO stories?). ϒpsilon (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if a British Historic House or castle doesn't have a Ghost legend, then they are missing out. (tounge in sceptical check) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename I think the description at the top should be clearer so that the awkward caveat about literary locations and relgious locations do not need mention. While some religious sites are directly related to occurrences linked to spiritual texts that non-believers and/or historians might dispute, many religious sites and events are indisputably real, such as martyrdom sites and other places associated with real religious figures or events where religious people were involved, as well as religious structures. Religious/Spiritual tourism is not all related to unprovable phenomena. Literary and folktale-related or inspired sites seem clearly out-of-place just by looking at the subheadings and to me don't need mention except that we used the term "folklore" in the heading which can sometimes include folktales.
As far as the "dangers" of having articles about ghosts/hauntings are concerned, I don't think it matters at all whether ghosts are real or not for our purposes. It's a legitimate travel topic that even skeptical or non-believing travelers often partake in to varying degrees. It also relates to Dark tourism in some respects. I think it would be worse not to mention them. If we take a stance on ghosts, would we then take a stance on religion to promote a "Wikivoyage-approved religion" or any other topic deemed "controversial"? We tell travelers what places are known for and why people visit, which is not the same as providing a guarantee that each location has true historic/scientific backing for everything said about it. It's fun to travel to places where legendary events "took place", even if you know or suspect those events never really took place. From what I've seen, we only take stances when the topic is not related to travel (like the former "Marriage in China" article), has serious legal ramifications/could harm the traveler, some rare morality issues that often also relate to the legality issue (we don't have a guide for "pedophile travel"), or "slippery slopes" where travel benefit does not outweigh the downsides. I don't see this as falling into any of those categories. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is dark tourism? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Tourism encompasses any tourism related to the macabre. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An excessive subdivision with all of two non-redlinks contained in it, "child region" of a parent region that has no other region articles below it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article isn't a deletion candidate per WV:Deletion policy. Instead, if it really doesn't merit a standalone article it should be redirected to an appropriate parent region. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - again, and as Ryan says, this is simply not a candidate for vfd. Discussions about region divisions belong on talk pages, not here. If no-one responds, either attract some attention in the Pub or wv:rfc, or even simply plunge forward and make the situation better. It does seem, however, that the Arctic Alaska article itself has a rather long list of cities, so before simply redirecting the regions, you should probably check if some kind of (different) subdivision or a complete overhaul of the structure makes sense. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it a redirect to the parent region. --Zerabat (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Finger Lakes. Stub was just created by a new user (see User talk:45.46.230.91). I was going to simply delete the stub, but would anyone prefer to redirect it, and if so, to where? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection, per Andre's comments I'd also say just merge and redirect. No reason to wait 2 weeks. I'd even say all of those lakes, unless they are obscure, should probably have redirects in place, but I can't judge the likeliness of people searching for them. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about doing so for every Finger Lake - for example would Canadice Lake, which has no amenities and to which most forms of public access are prohibited (being a source of drinking water for the City of Rochester), really be a likely search term? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, but it's harmless and I don't see any benefit to picking and choosing among the 11 lakes which ones get redirects. Powers (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Okay, let's speedy-redirect this nominee and create the further redirects too. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2016&oldid=3111045"