Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2025

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← February 2025 Votes for deletion archives for March 2025 (current) April 2025 →

Obsolete per new categorization imposed, detailed in Talk:Istanbul#districts_section_needs_to_be_revamped._(or_the_whole_page). Dudewithafez (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If any text was merged from the article, it can't be deleted, but it could be either redirected to Istanbul or turned into a small extra-region article with links to all the relevant district articles and an Istanbul/European Side disambiguation article could also be created, if people consider that worthwhile to do. My preference would be to just do the redirect and make this deletion nomination unnecessary, because that's the quickest way to deal with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, and can see the logic of creating an extraregion as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: I think keeping this article will cause more confusion since neither of the sides of Istanbul has a 'whole' identity. Even though they're in the Asian side; there are no major similarities between Üsküdar - Pendik or Ataşehir - Şile for example. On top of that, this article itself is poorly composed and lacks major information.

Also, I don't see any article about the 'European Side' anyways. The safest option is to either deleting or converting it to a disambiguation page.Dudewithafez (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that an article about the European side could be created. As I stated above, this article can't be deleted if any content from it was moved to any other article. In that case, redirection is possible but deletion is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue about identity can easily be handled on the page: just say so. The existence of this page in no way implies there is a common identity. –LPfi (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14 days have come and consensus is to rewrite this as an extraregion page – anyone more familiar with Istanbul willing to do this? (cc @Ibaman, Pashley:) //shb (t | c | m) 11:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. I have not been there since the 1970s Hippie Trail. I spent a few weeks, but all in Sultanahmet & Galata. Pashley (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as not deleted then. //shb (t | c | m) 06:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned stub with no useful content; another case where it would be much simpler to start from scratch. The author has not been active since Feb 18 either. //shb (t | c | m) 06:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the stub-starter comes back during the next 2 weeks and starts to make a real article out of it (or someone else chooses to), we can revisit this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. X is a city in Y is no reason to keep an article – if an article is worthwhile, that info should be stated on the region page (and it is now, added by Gregsmi11, apparently as part of patrolling). I hope the admin deleting the page will write a non-discouraging deletion comment. –LPfi (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a usable article on Datteln in German. The town has a couple of museums and a few hotels. The Waltrop article is in a similar position, and I don't know which would be more useful to spend time on. AlasdairW (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also now in favour of keeping the article. //shb (t | c | m) 22:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove support as a result of improvements. Ground Zero (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: unanimous consensus to speedily keep. //shb (t | c | m) 07:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another confusing cross-namespace redirect (also heavily discouraged for technical purposes) given "stp" on its own in a travel context refers to São Tomé and Príncipe – not Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy. I've replaced all the uses of this redirect outside userspace with WV:STP, as with STP, though I propose we redirect that to São Tomé and Príncipe. //shb (t | c | m) 22:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think writing WV:STP isn't too hard for anybody (and wv:stp works in the search box if you allow Javascript, and could be an additional redirect). I don't think we need to make stp a redirect, as writing "stp" in the search box makes STP appear (with Javascript), and using uppercase shouldn't be too difficult anyway.
If we feel that we need stp (equivalent to Stp) as redirect to STP, then we also need new york etc. – I don't like the idea that we need those, but if a new generation cannot be bothered to use uppercase letters, then we perhaps do need them.
–LPfi (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we don't need those – it's not unreasonable to expect typing proper names in capital letters when searching for something and even then your results still shouldn't differ when you use lowercase. Signed as someone who also consistently uses only lower text when texting. //shb (t | c | m) 08:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 23:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2025&oldid=5040744"