Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2024

← October 2024

Votes for deletion archives for November 2024

(current) December 2024 →

Hog Island (Prince Edward Island)

Unneeded duplicate of Pituamkek National Park Reserve but with no salvageable content. Hog Island exists as a redirect and I don't see the need to maintain this with the disambiguator as another redirect. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 00:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SHB2000. Ground Zero (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pashley (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm truly not meaning to be pedantic, but the Vfd candidate isn't actually a duplicate of Pituamkek National Park Reserve as far as I can tell. The former is the island itself and the latter a conservation+public use area which includes the island (disclaimer: I've never been there, though it looks lovely). Sure, it's a stub, but all pages start out as stubs, even if only in the mind of the editor who later breathes life into them in a more substantial form, but also sometimes as just a drive-by edit by some "rando" like we have here…putting a grain of sand in the wiki-oyster. It's not hurting anything, it's not imaginary and it lowers the barrier to entry for someone who might find it someday and make their first edit there. I'm open to being persuaded, though, if anyone feels that vehemently about it. — 🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk (My recent mischief) 08:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense for an encyclopedia article, but we don't have two bottom-level articles covering the same area on Wikivoyage. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems simplest to just make the term a redirect. What's the down side of that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect but find it unnecessary when no pages link to it and Hog Island already exists (meaning it would just be a meaningless + orphaned redirect). Or maybe I'm just too used to enwikibooks where we routinely delete such redirects. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get you. But you have to admit, turning this into a redirect would have saved time and caused no problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I fully agree with you, but I was very unsure a week ago and Deleting vs redirecting isn't an invalid discussion to have either. I wouldn't mind if you went ahead and redirected this article now, though. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still delete it. We have a listing for Hog Island in the park article & I just fixed the Hog Island redirect so it points to the listing instead of the article, so this article (even as a redirect) is entirely unnecessary. Pashley (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think you summed it up better than I did. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iresi

This comes across like an unreferenced Wikipedia article, rather than a travel article. There is no information on how to get there, what to see and do, where to eat or where to sleep. This place is so small that it doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. No-one has tried to rescue this article by adding travel information over the last two.months. Ground Zero (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iresi is mentioned in wikipedia:Igbajo. It is about 10 miles east of Ada town. Looking on the map, I see little of interest in Iresi. AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it has remained as such since March. 7 months is more than enough time to develop it into an actual article as opposed to the sad sombre article it is. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looking at the history, I see that the user (Special:Contributions/FHG001) who created it has not edited it since, has made no other WV edits & is globally locked. Pashley (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Globally locked as a spam-only account, too – gives me all the more reason to support deletion. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per community consensus. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bardibas

Similar stub article that reads like an unreferenced enwiki article (cf the last few stub nominations) with no integration whatsoever and has been abandoned for more than 1 month. I would redirect, but it's easier for a newcomer to start an article from scratch than it is from a redirect and there is zero salvageable content from here. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article's creator, @Churerange:, hasn't made any further edits to Wikivoyage since creating this article, so I don't think, we'll see any travel content added. Ground Zero (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the content in w:Bardibas, it's conceivable someone could create a viable Wikivoyage article about this place if they created informative listings about the points of interest, etc. This isn't it, but if Churerange comes back and says they intend to whip it into shape, we could keep it. Otherwise, I wouldn't object to either deletion or turning this into an Outline even without additional information for now beyond what's required for that article status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted as it has been 16 days. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]