Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2025

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← April 2025 Votes for deletion archives for May 2025 (current) June 2025 →

This was created by an anon user as "Brands hatch" & tagged for speedy deletion by User:Ibaman. I moved it to correct the capitalisation of the title & removed the speedy tag. Now I'm listing it here as one is supposed to do when removing a speedy tag.

I think it is now a speedy keep. This is a well-known car & motorcycle racing venue, famous enough that I (Canadian & not hugely a fan of motorsports) recognise the name, so obviously a tourist draw.

Ibaman asked "Is this a proper article]] or just a farm of touty links?" He's right that some listings are touty & need cleanup. Pashley (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some descriptions also appear to be copyright violations. e.g. that for Rising Sun Inn is taken word-for-word from the inn's website. Pashley (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brands Hatch is a famous race track and hosting races as of today so it merits being included in Wikivoyage together with nearby restaurants and hotels. However per WIAA race tracks and other individual attractions don't get their own articles unless there is some exceptionally good reason. So maybe we should move the listings to Eynsford or rename this as an article for West Kingsdown, of course after the necessary detouting. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keeping it as a redirect would be fine too. I considered suggesting that but did not see a good redirect target. Pashley (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per w:Brands Hatch, it is a race track, but seemingly not a village, and I didn't see any listing in the Wikivoyage article that included some village of Brands Hatch in the address. Did I miss any? So yes to redirection to a listing for the track, but no to keeping this as a separate article. Also, I would suggest deleting every listing that includes the words "we" or "our" as presumably not only touting but copyright violation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree redirect to the article which contains the listing for this racecourse is best. //shb (t | c | m) 22:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: merged + redirected to Eynsford. //shb (t | c | m) 05:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional user page. Has been around for a while though. Only contribution is to own userpage. So this one could be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I'd suggest speedy deletion, but there's clearly a risk that that would be controversial... Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These seem like clear cases. WT-en users don't need a userpage here for personal (reader) use, non-contributors don't need it for attribution purposes, and user pages intended to further the sense of a community shouldn't foremost promote a business or ideology. I see no reason not to delete these (I didn't check all, but I suppose I can trust the summary). –LPfi (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done – speedied them all as spam. //shb (t | c | m) 21:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more user pages

Blatant spam, would've speedied but I can't put the tag on the page, probably because I'm not autoconfirmed. (I stumbled across this page while patrolling EnWP for spam, so I hope I'm doing this right.) Pythoncoder (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Ikan Kekek's removal of this section and their speedy deletion of the page. I will remove the touting, but I think a user with contributions other than outright spam or vandalism should not have their user pages summarily deleted. The user may have been touting, but it seems at least one listing they added has stayed in detouted form. –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of at least several admins who routinely delete promotional user pages. Yes, even if the user in question made other edits (which were usually promotional, but not all of them always were). Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I, along with Ikan, also routinely delete spam or promotional user pages. Making edits is not a valid reason to keep spam userpages, and I'm with Ikan on this one. I'll elaborate more on Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout sometime later, but that's my brief 2c for now. //shb (t | c | m) 08:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:LPfi posted this edit summary but didn't add it to this thread: "users with contributions shouldn't have their user pages summarily deleted". To which I reply "nonsense." User pages that have spam or promotional content on them get summarily deleted, regardless of how many edits the user in question has, just as any purely promotional page would. It looks like we need to have a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, folks, since we clearly need to spend time discussing this, please do so at Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout#When should promotional user pages be deleted? I surely don't believe in spending time on VfD discussing whether to delete promotional user pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the listing for The Fern Gardenia Resort in Palolem#Splurge for what remains of their contributions.
I think what I told in the summary is in my posting above. There might have been some edit conflict confusion.
Anyway, a user page telling about one's affiliation is allowed. Whether misuse of that right is grounds for deleting the page is up to discussion. OK, I will continue in the suggested thread.
–LPfi (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this could be required for attribution, as the original user name "Yashvit" has been changed to User:(WT-en) Yashvit, and so the page should be kept for the yellow box at the top. The page can be blanked apart from that yellow text box if we want (the page is protected so only admins can edit). AlasdairW (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I still think this page should be Deleted, and I am totally unpersuaded that we have either a legal or moral right to keep an empty shell of a touter's user page up, regardless of the "WT" in the username being added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the complete lack of consensus, keep? //shb (t | c | m) 08:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone were seriously concerned about it, we could revdel out his contributions so they aren't even in the page's history anymore. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer that than keeping outright or deleting altogether. //shb (t | c | m) 10:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't support revdelling touting. We surely have copyright violations that we notice only after significant contributions to an article. If we think that reverted contributions still carry copyright obligations, then we would need to delete also every intervening version, including substantial improvements to the article. Restoring those with proper attribution would be a major hassle. The only legal interpretation that makes public wikis like the WMF projects workable, is that the historic versions are internal documents and that normally only the current version is relevant for our copyright obligations.
    For this specific case, deleting the user page, in my view, requires checking that no copyrightable amount of text from this user remains in the current article versions. That's certainly doable. My original issue with the deletion was that it didn't satisfy our speedy deletion criteria, as written.
    –LPfi (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user added a listing for the Fern Gardenia Resort to Palolem in 2010. The resort still has a listing, but the text has been edited - it may or may not be a copyright-able amount that remains. AlasdairW (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion has gone for over 1 month with no consensus, I am closing this as Not done. //shb (t | c | m) 00:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2025&oldid=5068198"