Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2022

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← June 2022 Votes for deletion archives for July 2022 (current) August 2022 →

User:Veillg1 wrote (on my talk page):

In "Blanc Sablon-Forteau", a redirection is programmed in Wikivoyage to "Forteau". Following the evolution of the editorial content of the "Forteau" and "Blanc-Sablon" articles, this redirection of the "Blanc Sablon-Forteau" article seems inappropriate to me. How to remove this redirect. Thanks. - Veillg1

I am copying the proposal here. Ground Zero (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this seems reasonable to me. These are separate villages that are close to each, but in different provinces. What I think happened was that one article was created for the two villages in 2014 as a hyphenated name, and later moved to Forteau. In 2022, a separate article was created for Blanc-Sablon. The hyphenated name is not a likely search term. Ground Zero (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for technical reasons. While it is unlikely someone will look up this term, this was the page name for Forteau prior to December 2014 and while unlikely, there may be external links that link to this redirect. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, but that has never come up in a deletion nomination before. That logic could be used to abolish deletion. We have to update our links and do it, so other sites that link here may on rare occasions have to update their links. That's the way things go on the Web. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "that logic could be used to abolish deletion": not exactly. The difference between most deletion requests for redirects is those were created as redirects (e.g. our recent discussion on Van Diemen's Land) and there will be few, if any, external links to them. Meanwhile, deleting this page would be the equivalent of moving a page without a redirect, which should only be done to revert clear page-move vandalism which is why I oppose deleting this redirect. Also remember, per the policy, "as a general rule, redirect pages should not be deleted". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created in August 2014, and redirected to Forteau in December 2014, a period in which there was little awareness of Wikivoyage. I think there is an exceedingly small chance that anyone linked to it then, and an even smaller chance that those links still exist 8 years later. Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. On a non-serious note, I know COVID has been a slog, but HTF is 2014 8 years ago?! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soon that'll be 10... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have separate Blanc-Sablon and Forteau articles. The only argument I can see for keeping it is that it just came first in my Google search for "Blanc Sablon-Forteau", but really this indicates that the term isn't used on the ground. If it is kept then it should be a disambig. AlasdairW (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that Blanc Sablon-Forteau isn't coming in my Google search (though I still favour keeping the cheap redirect). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted Pashley (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These three articles were created by 87.74.129.131, who, albeit not confirmed, is a likely IP sock of the indef banned ArticCynda. It was even more obvious when AC's latest sockpuppet, 2A02:8070:2183:6561:2CD1:C387:2464:A827 made a bunch of edits (now reverted), but most of the content here was written by AC, and as was concluded last year, they may not edit Wikivoyage. Zell am Ziller was also created by 87.74.129.131, but since the article was not edited by AC's latest sockpuppet, this should ideally be handled in a separate deletion request IMO. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I would trust you on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And look at nl:Apatity. AlasdairW (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar case to the above three but has only been edited by 87.74.129.131 with a phone number fix by DaGizza. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should delete this one, but I would note the edits in question took place over a year and a half ago, and the IP hasn't edited since then. But if we do suspect the IP, we could delete this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support on this basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also support. Ground Zero (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was willing to ignore this one until I looked at the other edits by this IP which included Apatity-1 railway station (Q16273194) and Zapolyarny mine (Q16965191), which is "an odd coincidence". AlasdairW (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/July_2022&oldid=4500047"