Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2021

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← November 2021 Votes for deletion archives for December 2021 (current) January 2022 →

This is a listing, not an article. I have ensured that there are listings for the mountain in the towns around it, with a wikidata link, and a description using the paragraph from the article. This article is now redundant. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would vote to redirect if there were an obvious single city (or even region) to redirect to, but the mountain appears to straddle the boundary of several regions. Therefore, when people search the name, they'll be better off getting a list of articles that mention the mountain, rather than being sent to a particular page. Plus, if Wikipedia is up-to-date, the mountain has been closed to hikers since 2004 and is only accessible to pilgrims from the local area.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GZ says they added a listing description using the article. That means the article cannot be deleted, unless the listing text is also (if the description is above the threshold for copyright). Anyway, isn't this a possible search term, which should be redirected to the most relevant town? –LPfi (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the case, then move it to my userspace without a redirect if the article history is needed for attribution. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How would anybody find it in your user space? By a comment on the talk page, yes, but that is unnecessary clutter. And we should never assume user space is a safe place for anything, user pages can be deleted by author request or for whatever reasons, and admins will not check for attribution concerns when deleting them. And why do we need to delete the page in the first place? –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason to delete is TT's comment on where to redirect to. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep and redirect. We can redirect to the mountain listing in one suitable article and have the listing link other possible entry points. Perhaps we should redirect to Quezon (province), which says "Quezon Province's main draw is Mount Banahaw". If that's true, there is no problem to have a subsection in See describing the mountain and listing destinations that give a good view or can work as entry points (if hiking the mountain is allowed). –LPfi (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TT’s comment about the mountain’s location. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect – I think LPfi's suggestion of redirecting to a region article seems sensible enough. Or we could redirect somewhere else, but I think it's best to pick which article we want use to give an overview of how to visit the mountain, and redirect this page there, rather than deleting the page so readers aren't sure which search result to look at for information about visiting the mountain. On the other hand, if it's true that the mountain is no longer visitable then it would make sense to delete (and remove the listings for the mountain in nearby city articles). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listings in nearby city articles are See listings not Do/Hike listings. I do not think that there is any prohibition on looking at the mountain. We don't have any article that explains how to visit the mountain. I don't have a problem redirecting it to the region article. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: redirected to region. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says the following about the following town in PNG.

Ukarumpa is an intentional international community that is the main centre for SIL-PNG, located in the Eastern Highlands Province of Papua New Guinea. It lies approximately 11 kilometres (7 mi) by road from Kainantu in the Aiyura Valley. The population consists of a variety of paid staff and volunteer staff who live nearby. The centre was established in 1957. The current population is approximately 600. It is at an elevation of approx. 5200 feet above sea level.

It's also what our article says as well. But this town contains virtually nothing for travelers, and

  1. community centres/villages don't get their own articles, and fails wv:wiaa
  2. from wv:wiaa "Some small villages and hamlets may be best handled by merging and redirecting, consolidating listings to the article for a nearby town or combining several villages." In this case, the neighbouring villages also have nothing for travelers, unless the Highlands (Papua New Guinea) article gets turned into a rural area article which I'd strongly oppose doing.
  3. also from wv:wiaa under "What does not get its own article": Tiny or sparsely populated villages and hamlets that have no cultural or natural attractions, or hospitality venues.
  4. we do have a policy of not deleting real places. Unlike the nomination for Lusahunga last month which was resolved by starting another article and merging the relevant details in, I can't seem to find an appropriate solution for this. This has to be one of the rare situations where deletion is the only appropriate solution

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I struggled with this one when I expanded it. I think the missionaries going there will get more complete and up-to-date information from the missionary organizations, and Wikivoyage isn't going to be as good. There is no reason why other people would go. Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added a market to the article, although it's about 24 kilometres away in nearby Punano via car. However, given that the roads in Papua New Guinea are uhm, look more like a path, it's definitely not the 24 kilometres experienced elsewhere. However, that market I added seems more like a market for locals rather than a market that a visitor would use. However, I think that could be moved to the relevant region article if necessary, rather than a wholly irrelevant town that's an hour away. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the farmers' market in Ukarumpa - it is shown in the Mapnik map, and I found a couple of photos of it. I have also added the hotel in Kainantu which has several photos on commons. The map also shows a shop and guesthouse in Ukarumpa. AlasdairW (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AlasdairW has added a hotel in w:Kainantu, which looks like it is a town with a museum, a golf course, and a hotel. I think Ukarumpa should be redirected to a new article about Kainantu, and the text incorporated into that article. Ground Zero (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Kainantu would be good. I tried to find info on the museum, but only saw one photo which suggested that "craft shop" might be a better description. There may also be a market in Kainantu, but news reports are confusing. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this it was created by an admin in 2009 so it probably served a purpose at one point but I’m unsure why this would ever be used as this is a non-profit. An ip has been pasting this into many user pages also. Can I speedy if there is no current. Tai123.123 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with LPfi here, but should we check with the software maintainers first? If so, how? Pashley (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: But if we do ever need to edit it though, it would show the default, but we'd need to re-create it to edit it. And if it's not needed, I think it automatically gets deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recreating it is hardly an issue; only admins can edit it anyway. The problem is finding the right page and the meaning of the pre-set numbered parameters, but that should be handled by a help page in the Wikivoyage namespace, instead of copying every MediaWiki page to here. Pages don't get automatically deleted – unnecessary ones get deleted from the software, not from here. I am pretty sure it is safe to delete pages like this; we could check Wikipedia or MediaWiki instructions. –LPfi (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit summary when it was created ("fix link -- we don't keep an up to date list of admins outside of special:listadmins") it appears to have been created due to a problem with the standard message displaying the list of admins. It may be that was only an issue on the old servers, but that should be checked. AlasdairW (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! that difference remains, in addition to minor wording differences. The default page uses [[{{MediaWiki:Grouppage-sysop}}]] (Wikivoyage:Administrators) for the link on administrators, while our version uses Special:Listadmins. The default also uses {{int:emailuser}} (Email this user) instead of "email this user". I don't know whether it is worse to direct a blocked user to a page on administrators instead of the list of administrators. If we are to keep it, we should think about what we rally want to tell. Writing on one's talk page isn't mentioned as an option, so most blocked users would need to register an e-mail address to be able to contact any of us. –LPfi (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should create some page such as "Help! I've been blocked" or something similar to that, similar to what Wikipedia does giving advice for blocked users to contact an admin. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching, it seems MediaWiki default automatically deletes them if needed. I guess this wasn't one of them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We want blocked users to contact us because? The answer is, don't block their user talk page unless they are spambots, vandalism-only accounts or advertising-only accounts or otherwise permanently banned, and let them appeal on their user talk page if they like. Admins do not unilaterally unblock users because of private communications from them, and I would oppose allowing that in any way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the current nor the default text says anything about using the talk page. Time for a rewrite? I agree that spamming admins by e-mail is not something we want to encourage. –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, and some like me have disabled emails from newbies globally (and most of those that get blocked are not autoconfirmed). We could also have an "unblock" template, similar to {{blocked}} except the opposite, which populates a category somewhat like what Wikipedia does. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now rewrote the message. Did I get it right? If we want such a different message, then the local message should obviously be kept. –LPfi (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text is better, so I'm no longer sure I support deletion, but could someone please explain why we'd want to use this template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a template. This is the text that would appear if you're blocked and try to edit. If you want to see how it's used, test it on a test account. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I support retaining the page and will discuss details of the wording in its talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says:

The Lunigiana (pronounced [luniˈdʒaːna]) is a historical territory of Italy, which today falls within the provinces of Massa Carrara, Tuscany, and La Spezia, Liguria. Its borders derive from the ancient Roman settlement, later the medieval diocese of Luni, which no longer exists.

If that's the case, who's going to search this term up? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move it to 1 Bagnone Bagnone on Wikipedia and rewrite accordingly? That's where the banner comes from. Then we'd have an outline with Understand from Wikipedia, pagebanner and little else – but if we find a single restaurant and lodging in addition to sights mentioned in Wikipedia, then it fulfils our criteria on an article. Our article Massa-Carrara (province) just links to Massa, Carrara and this, while its banner seems to suggest something totally different from the two "cities". Do we want to cover all of the Italian provinces or just the most important cities and resorts? –LPfi (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with keeping this as an extraregion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boundaries that are not well-known mean more work in deciding what information belongs there, and even having the extraregion means more work: per definition any attractions in the extraregion should be added to articles in the normal hierarchy. And what is the use of this extra work, if nobody knows or searches for the extraregion? Extraregions are useful for regions that are common search terms, or that have a lot to be told about them that doesn't fit in elsewhere. Nobody has found inspiration to tell anything about this one in the 16 years of this article's existence. –LPfi (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, why does anything about the article need to be changed? Second, why do you think nobody knows about or searches for this term? If it's a really useless term, I suppose it could be redirected to the smallest region that includes the extraregion, just in case someone does search for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikivoyage should focus on being a travel guide. Obsolete historical terms like this term from the Roman era don't belong in a travel guide. Historical travel topic articles with relevant sites and museums make sense for a travel guide, but this isn't one of those. I think that this should be a matter of policy, so that we don't have amateur historians creating articles or redirects for historical terms like w:Lenapehoking or w:York, Upper Canada. These may do no harm, but they do no good in a travel guide. The "no harm" argument could also be used for nicknames like "the Big Apple", "the 6", "the Great White North", "Oz" or "Blighty". I don't think we should waste time on things like this. Ground Zero (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is the issue: Do we know that people don't use this term now? I don't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google gives 3.26 million hits. Keep. Pashley (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Yes, definitely keep if even, say, 1/20 of those results are searching for the region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict, slow writer). Weak keep. My initial thought was to delete. But I Googled the word and, to my surprise, got 2.5 million results. The first 10 results look travel-related, except for WP. And our article was among them, at #10. Also, we have articles in 3 other language versions – the Italian one is much longer, albeit mostly historical rather than travel info. And we are linked from the WP article. It is not pulling much traffic – extrapolating the pageviews for last 90 days (excluding today) I calc 45 views a year. But, I remember how hard we worked and how we struggled for the early years of En:WV on Wikimedia to get anywhere much in search engine rankings. The article has little value for direct travel purposes, but if the page was the entry point to WV for a few readers and they went on to view other pages, that's a good little result for the project. Nurg (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a side-note, when I look at Massa in English and Italian, I see that we haven't run out of things to write about yet. Nurg (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty terrible entry point to WV. Anyone thinking they will find information on Lunigiana here will find just this, and be disappointed. We shouldn't think that click-bait pages are going to draw in new readers. If there actual travel information here, it would work to WV's benefit, but this will just drive potential readers away.
The German and Chinese WV articles have even less, and the Italian one is just amateur history. The presence of those articles is not a good reason to keep this one. Ground Zero (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The map is clearly inadequate, but some disambig-type extra-region articles don't really need to be any longer than this. For example, Persian Gulf is only a bit longer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: I just removed the one "Sleep" listing from Massa, because the previously listed agro-tourism location is near Massa Marittima, which is very far from Massa and which we have no article for. See Talk:Massa for more on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep the article, we should write listings about some (three?) of the most important sites and create city articles with eat and sleep for those locations (one is enough if those sights are concentrated to one province). That'd make the extraregion usable. –LPfi (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so; I'm not sure whether an extraregion or a redirect is best. But it seems like a plausible search term, so we shouldn't delete it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a common search term and a region referred to in official tourism websites per above. Gizza (roam) 23:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy by Sgroey which I declined. Reason given was:

here's very little info about this place online. There seems to be no tourist infrastructure. It seems to be a tiny hamlet. I edit a lot but have never seen an article about such a small, unknown location with so little concrete information available

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After further comments by Mx. Granger and Ground Zero, I now vote to keep. Sgroey, as you tagged this article for speedy deletion, like to comment? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, thanks for your comments. Its my first time nominating for deletion. After reading the other comments, I'm happy for this article to remain. There do seem to be some cool ruins around the area. I'll try editing to include these and make it read nicer. Sorry to waste your time, I'm happy to keep this article. Sgroey (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Traditionally we don't delete real places, and this article is reasonably well developed and seems to pass the "Sleep" test with three "Sleep" listings. Being a tiny hamlet is not a reason for deletion; see e.g. Childs. If there's not much information about the place online, so much the better – that means Wikivoyage is providing a useful service by giving readers travel information that they can't find elsewhere. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I am open to being convinced otherwise. This is far from being the least informative article we have. I have added some information since this was nominated, and deleted one inappropriate See listing. Ground Zero (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Doesn't seem like a good deletion candidate. I reserve judgment on whether it would be best to merge it somewhere; that can be discussed on its talk page or the talk page for the region it's breadcrumbed to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by a user with only one edit over a month ago. This doesn't have an article template and this is just a transport route that fails WIAA. Tai123.123 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly reasonable idea for an itinerary. I wouldn't support deletion, and we normally give itinerary articles a year before they face deletion nominations. If there have been no substantive edits by then, it might make sense to merge and redirect to Izmir then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Izmir. This is not an itinerary; it is "Get in" information. Wikivoyage:Itineraries says "An itinerary is a guide for traveling along a specific route through several destinations or attractions, giving suggestions of where to stop, what to see, how to prepare, etc." This article does not attempt to do that. A drive-by contributor put the information in the wrong place by creating a new article. We shouldn't keep it in the wrong place for a year because of that. It is better to put the up-to-date information where readers will find it. Ground Zero (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- Ikan Kekek is planning to work on this. He should be given time to see whether this can work as an itinerary. Ground Zero (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal? That's like saying New York to DC or Rome to Milan are "personal itineraries." I think the other arguments above are stronger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above arguments are much stronger for this particular attempt, I'm just covering all bases. Istanbul to Izmir shouldn't turned into an itinerary, because they're two arbitrarily chosen cities that, if the article were to be developed into a decent attempt at one of our itineraries, would be linked by a personally-chosen route with calling points included or omitted at the whim of the author(s) (the same would be true of the examples you gave, btw). It is my understanding that an itinerary linking two arbitrarily-chosen (by a Wikivoyager) points on a map always constitutes a personal itinerary. This is in contrast to a real-world itinerary that has an attested route and start, calling abd end points, e.g. the Trans-Siberian Railway, the London South Bank Walk, Route 66. I hope that makes my point clearer.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an elaboration, yes, but I don't agree with it, when there are obvious, standard routes. That would be the test, if we are going to use one (and I'm skeptical about this whole line of objection, anyway, as it has been overbroad in the past). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably an argument for another day 🙂.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article had a string of points of interest along the way from Istanbul to Izmir, then it would be a reasonable itinerary. As it stands, there is no more reason to think there is an itinerary to follow between these two cities that any other pair of random but proximate cities. Ground Zero (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "By train" and "By car" sections have embryos of itineraries. I don't see the urgency in redirecting, let alone deleting this stub. Perhaps someone will decide to make this article into a more fleshed-out itinerary in the next 11 months or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to delete information, but to put it somewhere where readers are better able to find it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Folks, do we or do we not allow itineraries a year before we nominate them for deletion? And do we have different rules for non-vandalistic IP users than registered users? Finally, who up and changed these rules without any general discussion that led to a new consensus? (And lurking in the background somewhere, why is a redirect argument appropriate to entertain on this page, rather than speedy keeping the article and continuing the discussion on its talk page?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of this question is that this article constitutes an itinerary. As I've explained above, I disagree with this premise. I don't think that it is appropriate to discuss the rules for itineraries as part of this discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call this, then?
"If you take the morning shuttle, you will have time to explore Eskişehir's museums, art galleries and small old town district before boarding the daily evening Izmir Blue Train. Izmir Blue Train leaves at 11.15pm with Eskişehir Train Station (train station) to chug to Izmir's Basmane Train which takes 11.5 hours."
And this?
"The fastest route through Bursa is 478 kilometers and will take approximately five hours without interruption. However, it would be logical to deviate from the highway in Soma and visit the Roman ruins in Bergama along the way and continue south from here to İzmir. This will make the total length of the trip 496 kilometers, which is still very doable in one day. However, in order not to rush to explore Bergama, you should set off early in the morning.
If you want to take a more circuitous route and drive along the Aegean coastline for a few days, overnight stops will be Çanakkale (for Gallipoli Peninsula and Troy) and Ayvalık or Bergama for Bergama."
Are those just "Get in" routes from Istanbul to Izmir, or are they suggested itineraries, though not fleshed out in detail? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ikan here. This could be a reasonable itinerary; it isn't yet, but that's not a reason for deletion.
Like Hong Kong to Kunming overland it covers travel from a major transport hub to a popular tourist destination, with some info on interesting places between. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Pashley (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. Maybe it's sensible to add the up-to-date practical information to the destination articles, and leave this article for a year to see if it develops into a real itinerary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The few comments about sights to see along the way really don't make this an itinerary. Those comments could be made about the trips between any two cities. I don't see anyone jumping in to say that they want you develop this into a useful itinerary article, only that they think someone else might do it. I don't think this is a good use of time. Ground Zero (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By policy, it should be given a year. We now want to have Vfd discussions of embryonic itineraries after 1 month, and that's a good use of our time because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we will eventually have to deal with this problem why put it off for 11 more months. It seems like no one has developed it anymore in the last month so I doubt it will grow in the coming year. Tai123.123 (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because we always "put these things off" for a year by policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very busy this week, especially between now and Wednesday. However, I'll try to add a bit more structure and some internal links soon, if it's worth my time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following policy is a good thing. Everyone who knows about the one-year rule should be allowed to trust that it is followed. One should be able to go on a trip assured that one can continue one's work on return, without the hassle of asking for undeletion. It might be unclear whether this is an itinerary, but let's err on the side of caution. –LPfi (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of a regular contributor being able to count on the rules, but rather of a one-time visitor who dropped a bunch of information and then left. (I would hope that a regular contributor would use a draft space to start a project that they know they couldn't finish in a reasonable time, but even if they didn't, I think we'd take less immediate action.) But as Ikan Kekek plans to work on this, we should not take any action on this to give him time to work on it. Ground Zero (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Keep for now following the 12-month rule. It can revisited 11 months later and merged into Izmir if it's not up to standard. Having said that, there is already a solid amount of information. It's just not formatted properly, making it look worse than it actually is. And the 12-month rule applies to articles started by both newbies and experienced editors. Gizza (roam) 02:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic in your position. Wouldn't it be the case that because the policy is that itineraries have 12 months to exist before they can be nominated for deletion, we shouldn't even consider this for another 11 months? Besides, when did you look at the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not one year yet. I'm ok with merging though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think I've finished my current round of edits on this article. Let's please have a discussion at Talk:Istanbul to Izmir#Structure and put this deletion nomination to bed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And note further discussion at Talk:Istanbul to Izmir#Structure. I'm hopeful that Vidimian will have the time to improve the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2021&oldid=4924623"