Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2023

← October 2023

Votes for deletion archives for November 2023

(current) December 2023 →

Changwon rose park

Some content should probably be moved to Changwon; Changwon rose park seems to be a typical city park rather than a standalone destination requiring its own park article. Gregsmi11 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. No reason for a deletion or discussion here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Merge & redirect. Pashley (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Changwon per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Redirected. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Toussuire

This one had a tag for speedy deletion which I removed. It also had a VFD tag but no listing here. Also this comment:

Keep. There is a town in France called La Toussuire. Maximefalco (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep or redirect, decision to be made by those who know the region. It is a real place, a tourist destination & a possible search term, so deletion should not be considered. Pashley (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article says it is "one of the six ski resort of Les Sybelles, one of the biggest ski areas in Europe". Should we create an article for Les Sybelles with redirects for the resorts? Pashley (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Les Sybelles & [1]. Pashley (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with doing this. It definitely seems that both Les Sybelles and La Toussuire are valid search terms, and I would oppose the latter's deletion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge given that there's actual travel content here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge into an article covering Les Sybelles. Looking at the map, there appears to be 5-10 places to eat and sleep. AlasdairW (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. The article, as is, is just a glorified canvas with one big commercial resort enterprise in the picture, out of line with Don't tout. Could at best be a redirect. Ibaman (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a resort, but I don't think that it is a single commercial operation. For example, there are 4 agencies offering vacation rentals. The websites of 3 hotels all look different and the fourth hotel doesn't have a website, which is unusual for a big resort. AlasdairW (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have insufficient knowledge to have an opinion about whether or where to merge the term, but this is Votes for deletion. Where or whether to merge/redirect should be discussed on the article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be an issue about having the redirect, if that conflicts with Wikivoyage:What is an article?#What does not get its own article?. If it is a single company, the redirect should exist only if it is a likely search term. Above, it is said to a valid search term and not to be a single commercial entity, but either should be established before closing the discussion. –LPfi (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It is not a single company. The hotels appear to be independent businesses, and some of them don't appear on the tourist office website. There is a property owners association to assist with marketing etc, which would not be there for a single company. AlasdairW (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content has been added. I invite those who voted earlier to revisit the article.Ground Zero (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial content for a substantial resort, the largest of Les Sybelles domains. The valley town of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne is a candidate for page creation but would be sufficiently distinct not to impact on this page. Grahamsands (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page has substantially improved since it was listed on VfD. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it should certainly not be deleted & there is nowhere it might reasonably be redirected.

If someone creates Les Sybelles it might then be worth discussing whether it should be merged & redirected there, but such discussion would be premature now, & as Ikan says should take place on the article talk page rather than here. Pashley (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damaraland

Damaraland currently redirects to the Four-O region. This makes no sense, because there is pretty much zero overlap between the two regions. Really, Damaraland overlaps Kunene and Erongo. Although "Damaraland" is a pretty popular destination in its own right and probably deserves its own article, I don't see one being created here any time soon. And I can't think of a better article to redirect it to (outside of just Namibia). Brycehughes (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm that kind of person who advocates that redirects are cheap, but this redirect just makes no sense. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Pashley (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should Damaraland be an extra-region article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, if anyone wants to do the work. Pashley (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to keep the term even with a stub. Extra-region articles don't have to be long and detailed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extraregions can be of any length, provided it's not just a mere byte or nibble. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A mere definition of what this region consists of would be sufficient, at least as a start, plus a mention of it being a popular destination and marketed under this name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So let's Keep it on this basis. User:Brycehughes, would you like to create the extraregion article on this basis? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sure. Good idea. I'm not actually sure what it contains (I think at least Twyfelfontein and Spitzkoppe) but I'll come up with something. Withdrawn. Brycehughes (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Nomination withdrawn. Brycehughes (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Redwood Trail

This trail does not exist. It is a proposal to build a trail across several counties in northern California. Some segments of the trail exist, but they can be covered in the appropriate city or region articles. The trail authority's website does not identify a timeline for connecting these segments, only a timeline for public consultations in 2023-2024 about preparing a draft master plan for connecting these segments. The article has no practical travel information, and can't do so because it is just a concept, not a trail. Ground Zero (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with you. Encyclopedias can and do cover proposed attractions. We do not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now – until it becomes a reality (or even when work starts), it's the job of the encyclopedia, not us. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an easy call but I agree. If someone wants to create an article for the individual completed sections of the trail, I think that would be reasonable, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That could be done in the present article or in sub-articles of it. If the user who started the article (or somebody else) seriously begins that work in the two weeks reserved for this discussion, we should wait a year like for less known itineraries in general. –LPfi (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A small section of the trail is shown on the map passing through Ukiah, but it isn't mentioned in that city's article. I think that an article can be started if it describes the few sections which are open - not a great itinerary to start with if it is a 5 mile walk then a 100 mile drive to the next 2 mile section, but it can be updated as sections open. AlasdairW (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an article could be made about that segment, with a mention of the proposal to increase its length. What's there now fails the test for a useful itinerary, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should assume that this proposal will be implemented. There are a lot of good intentions and plans, but not all of them come to pass. Let's just put the open segments in the local articles for now, and worry about creating an article later if it is needed. This is a case of one creation vandalism. We should not bend ourselves out of shape to accommodate it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to keep the article as is. I think a single sentence about a proposal is OK, but only in an article that has actual travel content. This one has none, and therefore is not a travel article and should be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A possible precedent is at Talk:Itineraries#How_to_proceed_with_only_a_section_of_long_hiking_trails. Checking now (14 years later) I see that Lycian Way has grown quite large & seems to be of reasonable quality. Pashley (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is a precedent. That was about someone who had started hiking the Lycian Way and wanted to know if it was okay starting an article about it.

The Lycian Way article was started in 2009, 10 years after the trail opened. The Great Redwood Trail is a proposal, not a trail. I wouldn't be proposing deletion if this were about a trail that had opened 10 years ago, or even 10 days ago.

The situations are not comparable. Ground Zero (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think an article about an incomplete trail can make sense in principle. The article would effectively be a guide to multiple itineraries in the same region and direction that have a sort of spiritual/conceptual connection. It would be useful in the same way that articles about long itineraries are useful to travellers who only do small segments of them. But the current article isn't that – it isn't really anything, and the official website and Wikipedia article don't seem to give enough information to usefully expand it. The article is so empty and the topic is so borderline, I don't see a need to give it a year. Anyway there's no information that will be lost by deleting it – if someone has practical information to provide they can always recreate it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]