Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2025
| ← December 2024 | Votes for deletion archives for January 2025 | (current) February 2025 → |
A sad stub abandoned for 1 week. I really think this should just be a speedy (no useful content or test), but I'd like other opinions. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Done – speedily deleted. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This article appears to have been written by AI. For example, see the ChatGPT-ish bulleted list at the end of the article. Information written by AI could make the article outright misleading and I would propose its deletion. Also, is that a potential copyright issue? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete– a while back I was made aware of this article but I'd completely forgotten about it (also thanks to some Nigerian stubs); thanks for bringing it up! If anyone wants to make this a genuine article, it is much better to delete this article and start it from scratch. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep now that GZ overhauled it. Thanks for reviving it! --SHB (t | c | m) 11:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I have overhauled the article, and invite @SHB2000, SelfieCity: to review the article now to reconsider their votes. Ground Zero (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @SelfieCity: fixing broken ping :) --SHB (t | c | m) 11:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. If you're confident everything in it now is accurate, it's certainly sufficient for the article to be kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any text that you are concerned about? Ground Zero (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about that area to be able to spot anything problematic if there is anything, but like I said in other words above, I trust you, and anyway, it looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like you, I have never been to Ambler, and I doubt that any of our contributirs have. I have only reconstructed the article from Wikipedia, and confirmed it with the barest of information available from the borough's website. I cannot be " confident everything in it now is accurate". If we adopt that standard, we should probably delete most of our articles. Ground Zero (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reasonably confident, at least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like you, I have never been to Ambler, and I doubt that any of our contributirs have. I have only reconstructed the article from Wikipedia, and confirmed it with the barest of information available from the borough's website. I cannot be " confident everything in it now is accurate". If we adopt that standard, we should probably delete most of our articles. Ground Zero (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about that area to be able to spot anything problematic if there is anything, but like I said in other words above, I trust you, and anyway, it looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: @Ground Zero: Thank you for improving the article. However, for me, two questions still stand. First, the section "Stay safe" still looks AI-written to me, which could just be deleted but past revisions would still be accessible. This leads to my second question, which is of a copyright violation and whether the article should've been deleted and rewritten to avoid the legal issues associated with an AI-written article on an open-source, Creative Commons-licensed platform. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The section "Do" also looks AI-written to me, with one of those bullet point lists so often a red flag for ChatGPT written content. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I assume that AI-copyvios are a minor risk: the situation is legally unclear, and most AIs dont copy text as such. We should avoid and delete or rewrite AI content for other reasons, but having an AI version left in the history is not worth worrying about. In a pinch, WMF is just required to delete those versions as they get a take-down notice, and only the user who actually made the edit, or their AI service provider, is legally responsible. –LPfi (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that's good to know. In that case, I guess we can just delete that AI-written material and keep the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I assume that AI-copyvios are a minor risk: the situation is legally unclear, and most AIs dont copy text as such. We should avoid and delete or rewrite AI content for other reasons, but having an AI version left in the history is not worth worrying about. In a pinch, WMF is just required to delete those versions as they get a take-down notice, and only the user who actually made the edit, or their AI service provider, is legally responsible. –LPfi (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The section "Do" also looks AI-written to me, with one of those bullet point lists so often a red flag for ChatGPT written content. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is very useful information and should be incorporated into Wikivoyage:Copyleft. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we can now speedily close this as keep now? SHB (t | c | m) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is very useful information and should be incorporated into Wikivoyage:Copyleft. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a real place & after GZ's revisions a real article. Pashley (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Outcome: speedily kept upon improvements and consensus. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)