Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2024

← January 2024

Votes for deletion archives for February 2024

(current) March 2024 →

Bristol Channel

The extraregion article is too small and its contents can be adequately described in West Country and South Wales. Bodies of water generally don't have their own articles except in cases like the Chilika Lake in India and the Great Lakes in North America. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too small for what? Bodies of water are frequently regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage:Bodies of water doesn't recommend creating bodies of water without any good reason. The Bristol Channel can be covered adequately in the West Country and South Wales. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that its shores are in two regions is why it's an extra-region. I don't see the need to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ikan Kekek. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weal Keep The article has a small amount about navigating the Bristol Channel - get around and the details of moorings in the cities. If this aspect is expanded, it doesn't belong in the articles about the West Country or South Wales. AlasdairW (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus to keep. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercia

Not a valid travel article. Can be adequately described in Medieval Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the point of having an article for a region which existed over 1000 years ago - it was an independent kingdom between 527 and 879. A redirect to Medieval Britain and Ireland would be of no value, as it is only mentioned once in that article. AlasdairW (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alasdair. Wikivoyage is not a collection of historical kingdoms. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tending toward delete: It might be a valid travel topic if it had any travel content. It does not, so since it hasn't been edited since 2021, it should be deleted per the 1-year rule, unless perhaps it's a widely recognized region. Even if it is, though, this could be covered in a single sentence in East Midlands and West Midlands. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a proper travel article. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insert to Medieval Britain and Ireland and redirect. /Yvwv (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date redirects

Dubious redirects; unlikely to ever be searched. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to link as many as I can, but there really isn't some mass automation that can do this. At the moment, assume I'm listing every redirect on Category:Vfd. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principle is that if content was merged from an article, a redirect is required, and therefore, these need to be kept. You're right that it's unlikely for anyone to search these terms, so why call attention to them by nominating them for deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that was merged, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I nominated these because it kept messing up with my search results. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What were you searching for? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WV:1st. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these had content that may be of interest for historical purposes. I suggest reverting to the pre-2014 version of these articles, and then nominating any that really have nothing there. AlasdairW (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no consensus → kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]