Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2023

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← May 2023 Votes for deletion archives for June 2023 (current) July 2023 →

Per the one-year rule for itineraries; abandoned since April 21, 2023 (cc RobThinks, the creator of the page). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a real route, marked and documented, and seems to have a degree of notoriety as one of the best long-distance walking trails in the UK. It also passes through national parks and world heritage sites. Seems worth keeping. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sure does, but the amount of content present in the article is beyond abysmal – that is why we even have the one-year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Abyssmal" is a good word for it. I looked at the corresponding Wikipedia article and there is a LOT of available info that could be adapted to beef up the topic. Mrkstvns (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should leave route details to Wikipedia. This is a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept per consensus and improvements. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere to stay, nothing to do, nothing to see. Delete per wv:what is an article. An unregistered user is creating bunches of stub articles. Ground Zero (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"An unregistered user is creating bunches of stub articles."
I used to believe that most articles started as stubs, and were gradually expanded over time, usually not having a single author.
On the other hand, I have seen here, a few days ago, some articles with very little information, such as this and this, and they were created in 2013 (10 years ago therefore). 187.111.14.17 16:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like for us to keep these articles, please add content to them. You don't have to add all the content immediately, but at least put information about some things to see, do, some places to eat, drink or buy things, some hotels - something. If you start putting in effort to do that in some articles and request some reasonable amount of time to start doing it in other articles, we'll be glad to work with you. However, if you intend to leave all these articles as they are for an extended period of time, we should delete them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, for the record, these articles refer to some of Rio state's least touristically attractive places, where I, as a Brazilian tourist who went to Rio many times, have never set foot, and think I would hardly have any reason whatsoever to do so. Ibaman (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it is up to the creator to show that they are indeed worth visiting. –LPfi (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:187: there is no time limit on VfDs. If you plan to expand these articles, please let us know, and we can put deletion on hold for a while. Just let us know how low long you need to demonstrate that these can become useful travel articles. Ground Zero (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comprehension!
Yes, I intend to put more information on those pages little by little. Just give me some time, it will not take so long. 187.111.14.17 21:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: You can delete the page Silva Jardim if you consider it necessary. My concern is about the Rio de Janeiro's metro area. 187.111.14.17 21:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For previous discussion of deleting stubs (long, complicated & inconclusive, but probably worth a look) see Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles. That ends with my comments:

Checking back a year and a half after the discussion petered out, I find the examples above — Danao City, Sipalay, San Carlos (Negros Occidental) and Catarman — have all been expanded; certainly none of them are great articles, but they are now all better than nothing.
I suggested a Metro Cebu article in the 2016 discussion of Danao & later created it. By 2020 that article was good enough to be a destination of the month.

As I see it, stub-ish articles about real places should almost never be deleted. Expand them, leave them alone in hopes they'll grow, or redirect them. Pashley (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are about neighbourhoods in Duque de Caxias and cities within Baixada Fluminense, which have existing articles. If the User:187 has additional content, it would be more useful for travellers to add it to those articles, rather than create a whole bunch of stubs. Stub creation isn't a good way of expanding Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So put the content there & redirect the neighbourhood articles? Pashley (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was concluded last year that an article about a real place alone is not a valid reason to not delete an article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's premature to VfD a group of articles less than 48 hours after they were created and not ask the creator on their intentions on whether and/or when they will expand them. Ideally, a user should be notified of a VfD nomination of articles they created if not engaged earlier before the nomination. Gizza (roam) 03:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is an unregistered account. Nominating articles for deletion is an imperfect way of getting their attention to end a page-creation spree. In this case, it looks like the creator is interested in adding travel content, so I'll probably withdraw the nominations. For registered users, I have always contacted the creator first. Ground Zero (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you stating that rapidly creating 14 stubby articles with minimal to no travel content isn't a form of disruptive behaviour. Had the IP not responded or improved some of the articles, that'd be on the verge of page-creation vandalism. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn't necessarily disruptive & in this case the IP has responded.
Keep or redirect all. Leave it to people who know the region to decide which in each case. Pashley (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to redirects to neighbourhoods. Wikivoyage does not provide coverage at the neighbourhood level. Cities should be redirected to the region if there is not enough there to warrant a separate article. Ground Zero (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re "[l]eave it to people who know the region to decide which in each case": Ibaman mentioned that they have been to Rio many times and these are neighbourhoods no-one would want to visit. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user Ibaman mentioned that has been to Rio many times, but he is not from Rio de Janeiro (I am) and he does not know the metropolitan area of Rio (I know it as if it were my backyard). The user himself said that "has never set foot" in these places, so how can he know they have no tourist value (be it historical, ecological, etc.)? 187.111.14.17 15:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, Ibaman is not carioca, therefore, he is a dumb useless type of person who should not be trusted. Typical carioca stereotyping in effect.

In fact, I know less about Greater Rio than I know about Wikivoyage policy, Manual of Style and WV:Goals and non-goals. What concerns me the most is that your work is, so far, empty of true listings with descriptions, addresses, phone numbers, Internet URLs. Long lists without these are ugly and useless and prone to be deleted without notice. Also WV:Tone: you DON'T NEED to repeat minutiae about Galeão and Santos Dumont on EVERY ARTICLE. Redundancy is also frowned upon in Wikivoyage. Also WV:IL#Dont overlink: too many links are ugly and unneeded as well.

"so how can he know they have no tourist value ?" yeah, go ahead and list every CV hideout and corpse-disposing place, so haole travellers like me can avoid them and maybe feel safer. Ibaman (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"yeah, Ibaman is not carioca..."
It is not about being from Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Salvador or wheresoever. It's about talking about any place (or any thing) one does not know.
"therefore, he is a dumb useless type of person who should not be trusted."
I did not say this. You did.
"What concerns me the most is that your work is, so far, empty of true listings with descriptions, addresses, phone numbers, Internet URLs."
As I said above, I created my first article here about 5 days ago, but you already want these articles to be encyclopedias on each one of these places. Articles grow as informations are gradually added to them over time, by several users who know the subject.
"yeah, go ahead and list every CV hideout and corpse-disposing place, so travellers might feel safer."
I should not even comment on this sentence (moreover, I should not be answering you as I'm doing now), but you could keep this reasoning and start by deleting the article about Rio de Janeiro, the main tourist destination in Brazil. 187.111.14.17 16:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikivoyage is not only me. This is a community. There's consensus here to let you do your work. By all means, please, do it. Nobody is opposing. I'm sure you're able to endure some criticism. It all comes with being part of a wiki community. I was a newbie here once, too, and got reverted/roasted once or twice, too. Tá suave, no sapatinho. By the way, I regret mentioning carioca stereotypes. I tried to be a little funny and it backfired totally. I should have predicted, and avoided any joke.

Having said all that, let me try and express my point differently. Look at the Cairo article. The City of the Dead is barely mentioned, and goes unmarked on the map. Visiting is not recommended, however interesting it might be as an attraction. I feel somewhat the same about Baixada Fluminense as a whole: I don't feel confortable, at all, treating it in English as "a destination article like any other". It's not. War zone safety conditions apply. Lost bullets fly, and people die. More often than not, more than Aleppo, more than Kharkiv and Odessa put together. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, if you really feel you must go ahead with this work, dont sugarcoat the local reality. Ibaman (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing some nominations for deletion

I have withdrawn the nominations for Maricá, Tanguá, Magé, Mesquita, Nilópolis Queimados and Japeri, as these are municipalities whose articles now demonstrate that the are places that meet the Wv:what is an article test. The remaining articles are still problematic.

Wikivoyage does not have separate articles for neighbourhoods unless there is a lot to see and do:

These articles do not identify points of interest, only very ordinary things. Perhaps these articles should be merged with others:

  • Silva Jardim -- there is nothing here
  • Belford Roxo -- there is only a church and a railway station or two
  • São João de Meriti -- there is only a church and a railway station
  • Paracambi -- lists a river, a train station, a local park, and an industrial building, without identifying why any of these places are interesting
  • Seropédica -- there is a river and a university.

Ground Zero (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal LGTM. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing more nominations

Belford Roxo, São João de Meriti, Paracambi, and Seropédica have been improved. I will withdraw those nominations, and redirect Xerém, and Alcântara (São Gonçalo).

I will redirect Silva Jardim and move its single listing to the region article in a day or two. Ground Zero (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are unnecessary local copies of the identical Commons files under the same name. They were used in a destination of the month candidacy, but no longer are high-profile. The buildings depicted (w:Arco de Santa Catalina and w:Cathedral of Guatemala City, for example) all appear to be quite old, so copyright concerns on the buildings probably don't apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept per consensus. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries, abandoned since Nov 17, 2021. Has a map, but is incomplete, and minimal content in "Understand" (cc Yvwv and DocWoKav). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This route is very well-known and should be expanded. Mrkstvns (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: consensus to keep. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete, abandoned since Dec 31, 2021 (cc Tai123.123, the creator of this page). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, I probably wont finish this one. Life responsibilities have dragged me away from this project though I still like the idea of it. I wanted this to be a sister page of New Golden Route which made it onto the main page but kind of forgot about it, if anyone wants to expand it feel free to, if I have free time in the next two weeks I may expand it.
Sorry for moving away from Wikivoyage, good luck to you all in your work on this project Tai123.123 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to merge the two articles? Pashley (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, different routes Tai123.123 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no consensus after almost one month. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2023&oldid=4924619"