Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2022

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← October 2022 Votes for deletion archives for November 2022 (current) December 2022 →

Sub-articles of Diving Aliwal Shoal

There are some valid sub-articles, but also several with no useful travel info. I propose deleting the latter.

These have not been edited since 2016 & they contain placeholder text like "about xxx km from the launch site at xxxxxx". It looks as though an enthusiastic new user started a project then lost interest. Pashley (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: all deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. The only travel content here is the table which has a list of markers (which I seem to have added on May 14, 2021), but Wikivoyage discourages the use of tables. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is said to be a National Trail. Aren't all these "sufficiently famous" to be excepted from the one-year rule. I assume it is marked, although I think it being well-defined should be enough. It probably is both by the system of right of ways and the National Trail documents. I will be surprised if it isn't marked on maps intended for hiking use. –LPfi (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The table should off course be changed into a more standard itinerary format, to allow easy addition of information. Copying the route description would be easy, but we should try to minimise duplication with that site and add as much unique value as possible. –LPfi (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The trail is marked on the ground, with wooden sign posts according to the photos on Commons. The trail is 50 years old. I think it qualifies as "sufficiently famous". AlasdairW (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a National Historic Trail. Certainly the article could stand improvement, but it does have useful info (if nothing else, the links), so deletion does not serve the traveller. Pashley (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a brief understand section and details of luggage transport services. I haven't walked the way, but have stayed nearby, and will try to add some more. AlasdairW (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Cotswolds article. Merging & redirecting there might make sense, but it needs someone with local knowledge to decide. Either that or keep this article, definitely not delete. Pashley (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a 100-mile walk can be well described in a city article; there is already too much info for the city article if everything is included. Merging would hinder pass-by editors from adding more thorough info. If we want to mostly just point to the official site, then OK, but if we want to cover it, then we should keep it as a separate article. –LPfi (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cotswolds is not a city article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. –LPfi (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. There is no useful travel content here (except for a bunch of bluelinks) and there's no mention whatsoever on how to complete this itinerary. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article's byte count (6,491) should explain for itself. Per the one-year rule, this is eligible for deletion as this has not been edited by a human since April 15, 2019. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we don't have articles on every trail. This could be a worthwhile article if someone wanted to rescue it (as I did on Silver Ring), but this has been around for three years and it is still a stub, so I guess it is not something editors think is worth working on. Ground Zero (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete This should exist as a well developed-itinerary, seeing how this is an important trail, and we should only hope that someone would want to rescue it, but the current article does not help the cause because it is not a good foundation; there is no content worth keeping. Twsabin (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Things changed and I struck my previous cmt: AlasdairW Improved the article enough in the meantime for me to change my !vote. The article looks like a good foundation now, or better. Twsabin (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have been overlooked in July this year, but it's another article that was started by a banned bigot (ArticCynda) using an IP sock. I would speedy this, but since this has gone long untouched, I've listed this here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. The talk page suggests that some of the content here might be a hoax (cc. @Ground Zero: who brought this issue up), and a list of mileposts isn't useful for travellers. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2021#Iditarod Trail waypoints. FWIW, the current article remains unusable and I remain skeptical of trusting this info. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted waypoint didn't warrant individual articles, but are relevant on this itinerary. The itinerary is a National Historic Trail (according to the article), which should make it well-defined and well-know enough to be excepted from the one-year rule. The list of waypoints should facilitate preliminary assessing the route. I assume the erroneous information ("hoax") was removed in connection with the discussion last year, at least the participants seems to have been satisfied. –LPfi (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this specific national historic trail is notable enough to be an exception. It doesn't help that most of the content, including the hoax, was written by 69.223.189.24 (talk · contribs) (and most of what they wrote still remains). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can drive along this route. A highway was proposed years ago, and I'm pretty sure it never happened. A highway to Nome would have to go via that mountain pass east of Unalakleet, the name of which I've forgotten, which connects it to the Yukon basin. If we remove the highway reference in the article, we can probably clean this article. I think it's worth keeping. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a pro or con vote, but the Iditarod and its route are certainly famous. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I removed the text that I could determine to be false information, but I don't know enough about the trail to vouch that what remains is true. If someone were willing to fo that check it would be worth keeping as it is famous. If we don't know that it is valid, the article should be deleted to make way for a future, accurate article. We should not keep incorrect information just because it is about a famous place. Ground Zero (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to keep since it is classed as a National Historic Trail. The only reason I know of it, though, is the w:Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, so I'm not certain. Pashley (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the waypoints against the route at arcgis.com and they seemed to agree. I think our wordings are cautious enough that there should not be anything critical to distrust. –LPfi (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is correlated with the Bureau of Land Management's website, so we can be reasonably certain it's accurate. My only concern is with the phrase "In summer, segments of the trail can be hiked" which seems suspicious given much of it is remote swamp. I'd suggest removing that phrase and keeping the rest. Hence, my vote is keep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the cabins along the route are "winter only", so I assume you can hike to the rest of them, but you wouldn't necessarily follow the same route. The National Historic Trail seems to be described as a system of winter trails and indeed, not only are the swamps a challenge, but the route also crosses rivers in a way you wouldn't in summer, some of them large ones. I also note that the first stretch, Seward to Girdwood (75 mi) is described as "(railroad)", in addition partly "proposed trail"; there might not be any real trail at that section. –LPfi (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: There is one vote to keep, one "inclined to keep" and some other remarks suggesting that it's OK not to delete this article. It seems clear that there is no consensus to delete. Any objections to closing this nomination as a keep? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Kept. Pashley (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled shortcut (WV:NOTHERE already exists). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We should keep shortcut redirects few, as some editors will use them when referring to the documents, and having to click those links to understand what the person is referring to is awkward. That's different from destination redirects, which will not see much use in articles, and when used can easily be replaced with the target. I would much appreciate people using the canonical names when communicating, but I hesitate in taking that fight. However, keeping the alternative names to a minimum should not be controversial. –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should keep shortcut redirects few & avoid unnecessary ones. Pashley (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a useful shortcut, not a realistic search term. Twsabin (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: unambiguous consensus to delete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in m:Tech/News/2022/42, has been superceded by require('strict') -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: both deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. As the article stands, it's a stub. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like the content already in this article is useful enough to merge to a listing. An adventurous traveler could find out more when they're there. However, Mount Damavand is not in Damavand city; please look at the Wikipedia article I linked: "It is near the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, in Amol County, Mazandaran Province, 66 km (41 mi) northeast of the city of Tehran." It is not in Tehran Province like the city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mount Damavand is not in Damavand, but it is a lot nearer to Damavand than Tehran. I have added a basic listing for the mountain to Damavand - if you look at the map you can now see where it is. AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains zero travel information, and has stayed like that since October 6, 2021. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is better not to have stubs created, yet people still do it. Deleting them after they have been created is really the only tool we have if no-one is interested in improving them. A year is enough time to determine if there is interest in improving a travel topic or itinerary. Ground Zero (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am a bit disappointed – the only travel content that has been added was added to prevent this low-quality unreferenced personal essay being deleted. Maybe one day, the English Wikivoyage will learn that poor-quality travel topics can also throw off readers.
    LPfi: we amended the policy earlier this year so stubs can be deleted if deemed useless for the traveller SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's when the destination itself is not article-worthy. Otherwise, still: "In the case of a really bad article, rather than deleting it, its text should initially be replaced by a stub and later with a real article." –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said that it is a bad topic; just a bad article. If the original author isn't willing to improve a travel topic or itinerary, and no-one else does so within a reasonable time, then we shouldn't keep it around. Ground Zero (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, maybe one day we will learn that the uptick in deletionism and the increasing expectation that articles be of usable status instantly over the last couple of years has driven off editors, reduced the amount of original content being added and ultimately will result in less people reading and using Wikivoyage and kill off the travel guide (not to mention it is antithetical to what a wiki is nor adopted by any other prominent provider of online travel content). Gizza (roam) 12:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been within the scope of Wikivoyage to host unreferenced encyclopedic content. Nor are we stating that articles should instantly be usable – all we're saying is there is nothing to bail out from articles without useful travel content (such as Special:PermaLink/4411187). I don't see how any of this has got to do with losing editors. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"instantly"? This has been around for more than a year. There is ZERO expectation that an article be of usable status instantly. We do delete stub created as part of page creation vandalism, but that isn't the case here. This is a case of an experienced editor created a stub then walking away from it. Now, it has had a few listings added, not to make it usable, but just to prevent it from being deleted.
The claim that getting rid of stubs drives off editors, reduces content being added, and readership is not substantiated in any way.
Sites that offer click-bait -- the promise of information that isn't delivered -- are quickly ignored by readers looking for content. Wikivoyage should deliver on the promise of information. As this project approaches its 20th anniversary, we can't rely on the excuse that we're "just in the building phase." Ground Zero (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While some encyclopaedic content lessens the frustration, and a list of see listings is easy to add to and may make the article grow, an Understand and a list of attractions is not enough to get an article up to guide status, which should be the aim. There needs to be some vision about what else is needed for the article to grow in quality. Judaism or Christianity (travel topics at guide status) are perhaps unfair to compare with, but take a look at Talk:Travel topics index/Archive 2004-2013#Pages on particular religions – there is such a vision. I'd argue that such a vision is needed for a travel topic article to advance from stub to outline; a set of standard headers would still be a stub unless there are good articles on similar themes to copy the set from. –LPfi (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic is not inherently bad and people are motivated to improve the article when it's nominated for deletion, I fail to see the problem. If anyone thinks that the information in the lede or Understand section of an article is too encyclopedic, they are always free to truncate that content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that a stub can be more or less easy to improve: if there is a good structure, you just need to add content (if you know something worth adding). If there is no good structure, you need to figure out what kind of information the article lacks, and how to restructure it to make that info fit. I think this article has enough content that people don't feel having been fooled, but something needs to be done to make it grow. –LPfi (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has barely been improved since it was nominated -- really only enough to save it from being deleted. I hope it will be improved further. Rather than argue about whether to keep the Silver Ring article, I improved it to the point where the nominator withdrew the nomination. I don't see anyone motivated to make this a useful article, but there's still time. Ground Zero (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: after 24 days, the outcome is kept. It's a real pity that the community is willing to keep low-quality topic articles, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While some may think it is bad form to comment on a VfD after it is closed, I am going to point out that no further work was done on the article since it was kept. User:Yvwv was not "working on it". Once it was kept, they left it to "other people" to clean up the mess. A few POIs were added for the sake of "saving" the article, but they were not linked to the articles for the town where they are located. A link was provided to Walnut Creek, but that is in California, not to Walnut Creek, Ohio, which does not have an article. Little information was provided to explain to the reader why they would want to visit these POIs. Furthermore, the listings weren't added to the town articles. I've added this information for the sake of not having an embarrassing article like this in Wikivoyage. But this demonstrates that we have a problem with editors who just like to create articles without any intention of creating articles that are useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah nah, maintaining a list of all disambiguation pages is unfeasible and has no clear purpose. It hasn't really been updated for quite a while, FWIW (there have been minor additions and adjustments, though). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: I'm inclined to keep it since it seems useful, but User:SHB2000 is quite correct that maintaining it is inconvenient & not often done. Is there a way to automate the maintenance so we get the benefits without the hassle?
It need not involve expensive real-time tracking; a bot that ran, say, once a month would be enough. I think we already have pages that work like that; e.g. I wrote at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2004-2013#Related_question "The special page for fewest revisions seems to be updated on about the 15th of each month." Pashley (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would need a bot, but I don't think disambiguation pages even show up in Special:LonelyPages, at least not anymore. AZ is a disambiguation page since Sep 29 yet, it's not linked from any article, but yet it doesn't show up Special:LonelyPages. Must've been a change in the MediaWiki software (I certainly wasn't aware that disambig pages once showed up in Special:LonelyPages). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the disambig pages no longer show up at Special:LonelyPages (but couldn't verify that by "AZ" since that page is linked from here and is therefore no longer an orphan), so I have no reason to cling to my "keep" vote, but I don't see any policy-based reason to delete this page either. A bot maintaining it is a good idea, if it is technically possible. Vidimian (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the link, so "AZ" is no longer linked. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your effort. It indeed doesn't show up in LonelyPages even when not (conventionally) linked. Vidimian (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no consensus; deletion discussion left open for another 7 days. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no-one seems interested in commenting further, I'm going to close this as keep. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear scope; barely any content. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of travel content in this article, isn't there? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It lists four proper articles on the topic (and one related one), which might be found through this one. As such I think it should be kept. It could be developed further to better put those four (and probably some yet-to-be-created ones) in a context. It was created less than a year ago, although not touched since spring. –LPfi (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a redirect to section: Architecture#Periods and styles (h3 Modern buildings). The article is very short and unlikely to be expanded, but the content is valid. On the other hand, the Architecture article precisely lacks a little more developed content of this type. This doesn't look travel related but it is because it's in the category of "Understand" (understanding the appeal and "meaning" of certain attractions). Twsabin (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I see this as an immediate benefit to the Architecture article, I merged the content, but didn't change the source page. Twsabin (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's clear that this article won't be deleted. Should we have a further discussion on what if anything to do with it? The normal thing to do would be to save this as a "keep" per lack of consensus to delete and continue discussion at Talk:Modernist architecture, but I'm willing to bend the rules for 24 more hours. I'll go on record as saying that it really doesn't bother me to keep the article as is as a landing place with links to other articles, but I don't really care where this content is (within reason). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought Twsabin already merged the content into Architecture; only the article needs to be redirected. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's still some content. But no-one wants to delete this anymore, and it can't be deleted because of the merge, so I will archive. Result: Not deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2022&oldid=4924479"