Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2023

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← December 2022 Votes for deletion archives for January 2023 (current) February 2023 →

The simple reason for this nomination is that its scope is unclear. While it has only been a month since this was created, it was concluded* on the talk page. To save a few clicks, I'll paste the discussion as of Dec 13, 22:22 below:

"Billionaire's social calendar" seems to be a colloquial phrase, rather that "a set of events". Is there any organization that sets this list or organizes events and guest lists. A Google search does not come up with much beyond some old media articles and a couple of wealth management companies. Should Wikivoyage have articles about phrases used in the media? Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This article really makes no sense, NGL. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Where is it a colloquial phrase? I've never heard of it as a phrase. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
My girlfriend hadn't heard of this phrase, either. However, it's a pretty random selection of events. You don't have to be a billionaire to go to Art Basel or skiing in Aspen, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I realize it has not been a year since this article was created, should this be listed on Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion because of its unclear scope?
  1. As you mention, you don't have to be a billionaire to visit these events
  2. These events are rather arbitrary (even the article says "there is no official calendar")
  3. The scope of this article is unclear
SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't know whether we should list it before a year goes by. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I guess this can be made as an exception, because there's no clear scope. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
If it is not a valid itinerary, and I don't think it is, we should not wait a year for it to develop into a more detailed invalid itinerary. Ground Zero (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That should sum it all. Some of the points raised were that you don't have to be a billionaire to visit these events, and they're subjective. The article even says that there's no official calendar.

*Specifically, the three of us (Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek and myself) who participated in the discussion as of Dec 13, 22:22 (UTC+11) couldn't find any existence of such a thing outside colloquialisms

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to know what Yvwv considers to be the scope and point of this article before deciding, but at the moment it seems to be a personal itinerary.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deletion process deviates from common practice to keep itineraries for 12 months until challenging them. If this practice does not work, we should find a new one. There are several sources to the concept, one of them being this documentary video: /Yvwv (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TT that, at best, this is a personal itinerary, so the 12-month rule doesn't apply. There is no sense in keeping an article around to let it develop if the concept is out of scope for Wikivoyage. In my opinion, an YouTube video is not something we should base an article on. If there were an official Billionaires' Social Calendar(TM) list of events, there would be an argument for it. This cones across more like paparazzi press sort of stuff. Ground Zero (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this article, but I assume the point is that you can pick up some events where billionaires go to see each other. Either you would turn up to see them too (but I assume you don't get a seat next to Jeff Bezos at Wimbledon or Cannes, so that's sort of moot), or you would go there to feel for a moment you are one of them while mingling among the commoners at the event. To fulfil those goals there is no need for a proper itinerary, nor for an official calender. However, I am not convinced that people go to Cannes because billionaires do. The theme seems more appropriate for a sociological study, but I am open for arguments on who is interested and why, and how to develop the article to actually be useful for them in a travel context. –LPfi (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be re-worked to become a proper travel itinerary then I am open to keeping this. There are indeed some events on this list that you can attend like the Kentucky Derby, though you will be seated in a separate section and not be rubbing shoulders with the likes of Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. But you would probably never get the chance to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos and rub shoulders with the billionaires there. The dog2 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched the Wendover video that Yvwv linked and even that says that this calendar is an unofficial and informal calendar. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's classed as an itinerary. Look at the bottom of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone wasn't reading the article properly, then. I stand corrected and please ignore my two comments above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is odd, as a para-itinerary, but unlike Ibaman I don't think it's out of scope. I had worked on it a little, and expected it to be nominated here; I even thought about doing so myself. Basically it's travel information useful to a relatively small group of people. Still, there are several similarly quite niche travel topics, but going further, arguably most guides also target a niche population: Who is interested in visiting an obscure destination that sees very few outsiders? Yet WV has guides for such places. There's no reason why a visitor to this site who is a potential attendee at several such events in a year should not be presented with relevant travel information. I have heard the phrase "Billionaires' Social Calendar". It's a colloquial phrase, but I don't think that it matters. Alalch E. (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not going to be a consensus, which means keep by default, but as I'm still not clear on the scope and point of this, I'd like to register my vote as delete.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This article is odd. That's not a reason for deleting per se, but for an odd article to expand (other than by improvements by the original author), it has to have a vision that other Wikivoyagers can grasp and be inspired by. There are some hints in that direction that I like, but not enough, and at the current state I cannot see to whom it would be more useful than a Wikipedia version. Our rule is to give the original user a year for making an article useful or inspiring other contributors. The article was created in November and its theme might be valid, so we shouldn't delete it by this discussion, and we shouldn't renominate it as long as significant improvements are done now and then. If it stays in practically this condition for a year, then renominate it. –LPfi (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: although general opinions about this article are mixed, with a slight majority expressing disapproval of this article, there is no consensus, and therefore, it means the article will be kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned skeleton with only the relevant section headers only. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this can be speedily deleted as "No useful content." Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot that WV:DP states that "In cases of copyright violation or large-scale page-creation vandalism, cases in which all of the information is about places outside the destination, or persistent lack of information on the order of including only the text "[Destination name] is in Region name", speedy deletion may be necessary and appropriate." While this article does is a phrasebook, not a destination article, the same rationale can be applied. I'll speedily delete this in a moment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this was a case of good intentions gone badly wrong, or of vandalism. The article says in many places that this park is in São Tomé e Principe. It is not. This park is in Equatorial Guinea according to Wikipedia and every other source on the Internet. I do not trust any of the text in the article. The author, User:Adetolu, has not returned to Wikivoyage, or responded on their talk page. Ground Zero (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I know I've been asked several times to not cite that these articles "were created to earn points" by various unamenable users (you know who you are, and don't cite NPA when I'm citing facts), but at this point, I don't even care because this is just becoming a pain and the more articles that come in, the more it proves my (and your, I think) point. If this park is said to be in EG but if Adetolu claims that it's in Sao Tome and Principe (can't be bothered with the accents, sorry), then all I have to say is how do you manage to get the COUNTRY the park is in wrong. Delete this hoax (and if no-one beats me to nominating all other articles they've created after I get some sleep) and my stance is that hoaxes should have no place on Wikivoyage. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at this article yesterday - the map agrees with the WP article that park is in Equatorial Guinea. The organisers of the competition think it is in Djibouti, according to their list of suggestions! AlasdairW (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you mean the {{geo}} map, it was added later from Wikipedia. The original version doesn't give an exact location, but talks about species unique for São Tomé. The current version is totally confused, as it mixes the park in Equatorial Guinea with the one in São Tomé the article originally was about (real or imagined). I lean towards regarding the article as hoax. It talks about the "Nsork Kingdom, which ruled the island of São Tomé in the 16th and 17th centuries", unknown to Wikipedia, which tells a lot about the islands' history of that time. Also the description of Sao Tome Grosbeak: "bird that is found only in this park" doesn't match that of iucnredlist.org, which doesn't mention any park. I think Adetolu owes us a good explication. Hoaxes are unacceptable. –LPfi (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the {{geo}} map. If you use it and select the Mapnik layer, you will see that it is in "Parque Nacional de Los Altos de Nsork". Google couldn't find "Nsork Kingdom" anywhere but this article! AlasdairW (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a nightmare! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this was trying to create an article for w:Parque Natural Obô de São Tomé, but got lost somewhere. I have updated the Explore Africa/Article Suggestions to move three suggestions from to Djibouti to Equatorial Guinea. AlasdairW (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But Parque Natural Obô de São Tomé says the park is 195 km², while the original article said 10.000 ha, i.e. 100 km². They might have been using some out-of-date information or be confused, but I suspect they made no try at confirming their information, or did so without the skills needed. No one knows the bird's range, so saying the range is confined to the park is a wild guess at best. –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now think this should be speedy deleted because it is so wrong. Any objections? Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want to salvage some of your translated content? I think the original could be speedily deleted, but that part could be reinstated (at some point?). –LPfi (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be enough to sustain the article on its own. I think it's best to purge the article altogether. Ground Zero (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. –LPfi (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted as likely hoax. Ground Zero (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ordinary train trip, not an itinerary. It it like tens of thousands of other train trips around the world. It does not need its own article. Ground Zero (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. A train trip that's just from one city to another and not an especially scenic route or something is not an itinerary that merits its own article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy anything useful to Abeokuta#Get in, then delete. Pashley (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For attribution: if you merge anything above the copyright threshold, the history should be kept, i.e. the article redirected instead (to be linked from the edit summary). I think that we should do the same if anything non-trivial is copied, regardless of copyright requirements. –LPfi (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same user (User:Kojodavid) created two other dubious itineraries, Lagos to Ibadan by road & Abeokuta to Lagos by train. I'd say those should go as well. I've added a comment on his talk page calling attention to this discussion. Pashley (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those were also probably created to game the (failed) points system on m:Explore Africa. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Kojodavid (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "[o]kay"? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kojodavid: courtesy ping. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it is greatly expanded to describe the route, within two weeks. I don't object to merging it into Osogbo, but I don't think that is very useful.
I commented out the "by air" itineraries in the competition because it was clear that there could never be a usable by air itinerary, but I left the "by train" and "by road" ones, because we have examples of usable ones (including West Highland Line and Oamaru to Dunedin avoiding State Highway 1), and I don't know which of the list of routes could be an interesting journey. AlasdairW (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted Ground Zero (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious itineraries (see Pashley's comment above), likely created only to earn points in the m:Explore Africa competition. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted.Ground Zero (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Ross Island. McMurdo Station scope has been broadened so that "Ross Sea" is now the natural name for its content, but that name has been used as a redirect and I can't move. I tried a workaround renaming as "Ross Island" but that didn't solve it. I'm therefore proposing deletion simply to free up those names and immediately re-use Ross Sea for the McMurdo content. If there are simpler solutions all the better. Grahamsands (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Sea has had its contents moved into different other articles, so the history needs to be kept. That makes the situation a bit complicated, and there is no elegant solution. I don't see any discussion on the page move, and I think we should have a strong consensus on that before moving this page away (I moved it back, forgetting to suppress the redirect, so Ross Island still exists). Perhaps some Ross Sea/archive or some such could work, but the move should be done by an admin to avoid leaving a redirect (if a normal user could suppress or delete the redirect, then moves by vandals couldn't just be reverted). –LPfi (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The discussion was at Talk:McMurdo Station#Transantarctic Mountains. Let's continue there about the merger and move, and lets not delete the page. Ping me if you want me to do the move when this is resolved. –LPfi (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: move fixed, no need for any deletions. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't list a single thing to see or do there (Tel Dan is not in Shebaa Farms and is covered in a different article). The only thing at all relevant to travel is a mention of a road which goes nearby (but not the road which actually goes in it). And if I understand correctly, it's a closed military zone that one can't visit if they want to. Ar2332 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected to Golan Heights. Ground Zero (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2023&oldid=4603340"