Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2012

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← February 2012 Votes for deletion archives for March 2012 (current) April 2012 →

Page has vfd template, but I see no listing here. Article strikes me as borderline. Is it a legit travel topic or too far down a slippery slope? (WT-en) Pashley 19:27, 22 December 2011 (EST)

  • Merge to Antwerp. This seems like a questionable topic for a travel article and is one that will likely invite spam from jewelry shops. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:21, 24 January 2012 (EST)
  • Keep. I can see why you would question it, but since the diamond industry is so huge in Antwerp and buying them is such a primary tourist activity, I can't come up with a good reason why it can't be a travel topic. On the other hand, for those who are interested, it seems a good piece of advise. It sure needs some guarding to prevent spam, but that's true for many articles and shouldn't be a reason for deletion. We could just agree on the talk page that the article should contain no listings, or something. As an aside, I really think we should not welcome new contributors who are making good edits with a vfd. If such a nomination is needed, they should at least get a welcome and an explanation first. It seems that we just scared this one away :-( (WT-en) Justme 06:54, 25 January 2012 (EST)
  • Would anyone mind if this discussion is moved to Talk:How to buy a diamond ring in Antwerp? Based on existing discussion it sounds like at worst this would become a merge and is no longer a deletion candidate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:19, 12 February 2012 (EST)
  • No objection here. (WT-en) Pashley 20:11, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Kept (for now). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

  • Merge. This one was speedy deleted, but it seems to have been created in good faith as part of a student project so I've restored it and put it up for normal discussion. Info about a specific resort shouldn't be in its own article per Project:What is an article, so the relevant bits should be merged to the appropriate city article(s) and then the original article deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:20, 7 March 2012 (EST)
  • Merge and delete. This is clearly a business promotion so as an article it should be deleted soon. There are indeed some bits about the surroundings, those could be merged into Oranjestad. (WT-en) Justme 13:11, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Aruba. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:58, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. Per Project:What is an article individual businesses are not given their own articles. (note: due to the ampersand, to view the first article use the link ). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:41, 8 March 2012 (EST)
  • Delete. Agreed. And it doesn't need its own article, anyway. It's pretty effectively covered in Ledyard_(Connecticut), and if any information should be added, it should go there. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:50, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:58, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

  • Delete. What information is here should simply be merged into Bay Area, and although we do have a few other "Driving in _____" articles, they tend to be national in scale, with only one exception (below). -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Unless someone can come up with a reason why driving in San Francisco is really distinguishable from other U.S. cities, I agree with (WT-en) D. Guillaime --(WT-en) Inas 19:38, 8 January 2012 (EST)
  • Delete. If there are particularities (like useful radio stations), they can easily fit in the city article. (WT-en) Justme 07:03, 25 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge to Bay Area (California). The info about freeways and traffic should be in the region article, but for SEO purposes this is probably a useful redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:22, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Bay Area (California). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

  • Merge (if any)/delete. Some of this information could move to the Get Around sections of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County, but I don't think an encyclopedic list of numbered LA freeways is too useful anywhere. This article had minor discussion on its talk page about its usefulness back in 2003/4, but only between two people and it never went anywhere. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect. This is an old article that turns up in many searches now, so it should not be deleted per the "delete vs. redirect" guidelines. Merge and redirect seems like the correct approach. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:13, 7 January 2012 (EST)
  • Weak Keep. Possibly U.S. residents view this more objectively, but I think driving in L.A. rates as more than just transportation, and an overview of the freeways comes in handy for a first time driver there. The article itself seems to be more or less readable, and contains useful information to the traveller. --(WT-en) Inas 19:25, 8 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge and delete/redirect. There's not much here that's actually specific to LA (rush hour is more than an hour? people speed? slower traffic keep right? use a map or a GPS?) --(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
  • Merge and Delete the purpose of a redirect should direct people to articles with pertinent information NOT just articles sharing names. Does our Los Angeles County article really have such great information about driving that a redirect would make sense? There is nothing more frustrating than links and redirects to articles that don't give the information that the redirect implies is there. If it is redirected, then those Google people who really want driving tips will be mad at our misleading redirect. No reason for us to redirect. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 06:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)
    • For those who are suggesting this article be deleted, I think Project:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting indicates that it should definitely NOT be deleted ("Redirecting non-articles, when possible, is usually preferred to deletion because a) anyone can make a redirect and b) redirects may help with search engine optimization."). If we are going to delete this article then the deletion policy should probably be updated to include cases like this one (namely, articles with SEO value), but until that happens I don't think a delete is appropriate based on existing policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:33, 12 January 2012 (EST)
I'm in favour of keeping, but since when does "redirecting non-articles when possible is usually preferred", equate to "policy indicates it should definitely NOT be deleted". Again, the policy is clearly written to guide people in voting and leading to a consensus. If people haven't read the policy, by all means point them to it. However, I think most people are aware that we prefer to redirect. If they have that understanding, but identify this as a case where we delete instead, then that is well within the bounds of the policy IMO. --(WT-en) Inas 17:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Turning your argument around, what in the deletion policy supports deletion of this article? It's a usable travel topic, so it does not fall under the deletion guidelines for outline travel topics. Beyond that, I don't see anything else in the policy that would support deletion, and so far people aren't citing the deletion policy in their arguments. The policies have been discussed to death and represent current site consensus, so in cases where there is disagreement it seems like it would make sense to rely on them to guide decision making. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • Perhaps merge this and the one above into a single "Driving in California" travel topic, and redirect both there? (WT-en) Pashley 01:45, 27 February 2012 (EST)
    • But what would such an article say, and why would its information belong there and not in United States? I've driven in California, and it's pretty much exactly like any other state in the union. -- (WT-en) BigPeteB 09:45, 27 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Los Angeles County. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2012&oldid=2954218"