Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2017

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← August 2017 Votes for deletion archives for September 2017 (current) October 2017 →

Both articles where not really modified for at least two years. Also, there is not much action to expected in the future, since Azerbaijan articles are quite the opposite of busy. I would rather clean up this country and concentrate on the main attractions and not have people confused with links that lead to empty articles like them. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aaaaand we will rehash for the seven millionth time our "debate" on whether to delete real places with a lot of people simply pointing at a policy that we don't do that... Sigh. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The place is a tiny islet-like w:L'Isuledda peninsular. The page name is after a campsite which is used to be there, but closed in 2008. So the page is mostly about a beach which is not enough for a destination page. The page was not edited since 2008. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not to delete real places & the name is a possible search term, so this looks like an obvious redirect to me. However I do not know the area so cannot tell where to redirect it. Pashley (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at a map, Palau (Italy) looks like the place to redirect it to. That is, if we actuality had a Palau guide. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me it still looks like an advert of a single camping on a beach. But I see you guys were working hard on this article to mend it, so never mind --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are discussing very adjacent issues very repeatedly here - should "articles" that were created mostly as spam, by accident or the likes be kept? How strict do we want to be about our "never delete real places" dogma? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are main three options with new articles created as spam based on real places. 1. delete them, 2. keep them as stubs/outlines or 3. redirect them. Redirecting may be a better option than deleting for SEO purposes and doesn't have the problem of looking bad and empty like a skeleton outline. I guess the one drawback with redirecting is that these places may be forgotten (a redlink stands out as something that needs to be created and expanded and so does an empty outline to some extent) Gizza (roam) 00:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have (had?) a persistent page-creation vandal who constantly created articles for small towns, whose articles we delete. I'm not crazy about that policy, but it was already well-established by December 2011 when I first began editing here, so I suppose that ship has sailed. Still, I think that for virtually all purposes the only options are keep as is or redirect, and the difference should IMO hinge on whether the article passes wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For an actual test of how mostly empty articles (but with template, geo & WP link) fare if they are just left that way instead of being deleted or redirected, consider the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Completely_empty_skeletons. When that discussion died in early 2016, several articles that some people had wanted to delete or redirect — Danao City, Sipalay, San Carlos (Negros Occidental) and Catarman — were left in approximately that state, Catarman only because I had recreated it after a deletion.
All of them have had contributions since then. Looking at them now, none are particularly good articles but all are better than nothing. Pashley (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I routinely delete articles when I can find the source of copyright violation that was used to create them. Otherwise, I do not delete new articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What ever, but a single beach article shouldn't have a reference to it at the big region article like Sardinia, so I'm removing this link --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep. Ground Zero (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this allowed per our WV:Bodies of Water policy? You decide! Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is an uncredited copyvio from w:Napo River, but I suppose perhaps it's a small enough percentage of the article that if the rest is not copyvio from somewhere else, the article might not have to be deleted as a whole. However, your question is apt. I doubt this article would be OK unless it's redefined as an itinerary or some kind of region article or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Searching for "Yasuni" shows the park is already mentioned in several articles. Pashley (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Seems like you guys have found the best solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was settled two a weeks ago, but it seems that no-one is willing to do the move, so let's close the discussion, remove the deletion tag, and move on. Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you proposing to remove the deletion tag if the problems mentioned above haven't been dealt with? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So have done the basics of the move. Could do with a little work on the content though. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Traveler100 for doing the move. This seemed like a discussion that had died, so there was no further use in having the tag hanging around cluttering up the article. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Moved to Yasuni National Park. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2017&oldid=4924766"