Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy

Add topic
Active discussions

Archived discussions

Delete Over RedirectEdit

In the current vfd discussion surrounding the Korean county articles that were created, myself and Hobbitschuster have pointed out how illogical it is to make the created articles into redirects just because the user refuses to add descriptions to their listings. The reason given by ThunderingTyphoons! is that it's policy. Although the policy does actually state that redirecting is USUALLY preferred over deletion rather than absolutely, I still think the merging preference in this vfd discussion is a case where the policy goes against TTCF and common sense.

While I agree that merging real places often makes sense, there should generally be some consideration of the destinations being merged (and the articles they are being merged into). That is not the case in this vfd discussion. Users voted to "merge" because they're "real places", but the issues with these articles have nothing to do with the destinations. The issues brought forth in the discussion were that:

  • The article creator is blocked on another Wiki: Not a valid reason to merge their articles
  • The article creator uses sockpuppets: Not a valid reason to merge articles
  • The user's English or translations are poor: Not a valid reason to merge articles
  • The content may be copied from another source: Not a valid reason to merge articles
  • The article creator added listings without descriptions: Not a valid reason to merge articles
  • The article creator doesn't respond to correspondence: Not a valid reason to merge articles.
  • The article creator created too many articles with too little content: May be a valid reason to merge at the moment (I'm not sure), but shouldn't be

Most of the reasons for the nomination are about the user and not the destinations. It seems everyone should have been voting to "Keep", but I'm going to assume that it is the last point that is making everyone vote "merge" (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, I think the only sensible option is to delete them. We should be merging articles that cannot support their own articles, not articles that the creator refuses to add descriptions to. It doesn't serve the traveler to merge every article that a user creates just because they created too many (or for reason related to the user themselves). It feels like we're punishing (or ourselves) for little reason other than "policy". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there is some misrepresentation of at least my own position on the proposed Korea redirects, so I will clarify. As I explained in that discussion, where enough content has been added to the articles created by the editor in question to make them useful articles for travellers, I have removed them from the deletion/redirect nomination. Because ttcf. The remaining articles aren't useful for travellers, and don't have content worth merging, so I think they should be deleted and redirected to the regional article. Because ttcf. To quote from the original nomination, "I propose to delete/redirect these crappy articles because they are not useful to travellers...." The place names are valid search terms, so a redirect makes sense, in my opinion.
Our failed attempts to engage the contributor to get more useful content demonstrate that my aim (and the aim of the others who tried to coach the contributor) has been to build better articles. The excessive focus on the "punishment" argument is misplaced and does not represent what has been going on here. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"Delete and redirect" is not something our policies allow. And I am not sure whether we should allow for it. And there is the question whether those articles are likely search terms and which benefit it would bring to make them redirects... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Ground Zero I put all of the things brought up into the list above but as I stated, I assume the last one (too many articles without much content by a single user) is the reason for the merging. I believe you stated that the listings without descriptions are "eyesores" and make WV look bad. I don't necessarily agree with that, nor do I think that is a valid reason to merge articles. If the articles themselves are "crappy because they are not useful" then why would redirecting them make them more useful than outright deleting them? The articles in that vfd actually DID have attraction names which was much more useful than a redirect. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
User:ChubbyWimbus I never called the articles "eyesores". I wrote that they are not useful to travellers. Lists of sights, restaurants, hotels, etc., are not useful for travellers or good for Wikivoyage. It is telling readers "do your own research". Then what is Wikivoyage for? We need to provide better quality information to attract and be useful for readers. If there were any useful information in the articles, I'd be willing to wait to see if the article can grow. But I've tried on some of these articles and haven't been able to find stuff worth adding. If you think there is useful information out there, please add it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not clear what the purpose of this discussion is, very possibly because I'm not reading closely enough. ChubbyWimbus, are you proposing to change the deletion policy? If so, how? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I am proposing a change to the "merge not delete" policy: If the situation arises that a user creates numerous articles with little or no content and the articles are brought to question (without improvements being made), then deletion is preferred over merging. It's better to just return them to their state of non-existence until someone wants to create them with attention to those destinations. An issue with mass article creation says nothing about the destinations themselves. Merging should be done with consideration of specific articles. The answer to mass article creation shouldn't be mass merging those articles. Mass merging is at least as bad (I'd say worse) than mass empty article creation. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I see, thank you for being specific. You say a couple of times that deletion is preferable to merging; why is that, in your view? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
To me, merging articles should require some sort of consideration of the destination itself. In the case of mass article creation, the issue is not about the article destinations themselves but rather that a large number were created without content. In that case, I find it preferable to return them to their previous state (aka: delete them). As I stated above, I don't think it makes sense to "solve" mass article creation with mass merging. It is akin to making all redlinks into redirects. It's thoughtless and counterproductive.
LPfi makes a point on the same vfd that I agree with (and have made before): We prefer to redirect real places. However, that requires that there is some information on the place in the target article, either from before or added when redirecting. If the reader has no idea why he or she ended up in North Gyeongsang after typing Bonghwa County, and the former is no help in planning a trip to the latter, then a redirect does not serve the traveller. If providing useful information in the redirect target is more trouble than it's worth (for those of us who would have to add the info, not a hypothetical local), then deleting is a better path.

ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

To the point that "delete and redirect" is not possible per policy, turning articles with insufficient content or usefulness into redirects is pretty common practice, and I would very much doubt it's against any policy. I completely agree with Ground Zero's position. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Please read the discussion before responding. "Delete and redirect" was not proposed anywhere. Also, this is a policy change discussion (again, please read before responding), so citing the policy is moot. The proposal is a small change in that if a user is found to be creating excessive amounts of blank or near-blank articles, the articles should simply be deleted rather than merged/redirected. The mass creation of blank articles is no more harmful than the mass creation of redirects. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact that I replied only to one comment in no way suggests that I hadn't already read the rest of the thread. I agree that if there are a large (or even small) number of useless articles, such as the Telstra man creates about tiny villages in Australia, they should be simply deleted. I just doubt that's true in regard to these counties. They seem like useful and reasonable search terms to me, and that's why I think they should be turned into redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"We rarely delete pages"Edit

Not true. I often delete pages started by spambots, touters and vandals. Shall we edit that text? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Either that, or rephrase to something like "We rarely delete pages that are the result of good-faith attempts to improve the travel guide."--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Good ideas from both. Edit as Ikan suggests, to text about as TT suggests. Pashley (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I should mention, there's another reason to delete pages: They're verbatim copies from Wikipedia without credit or from non-copyleft sites. So maybe:
"We rarely delete pages that are not copied from other sites and are the result of good-faith attempts to improve the travel guide." Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess I may make this change within a day or so if there's no comment, knowing that it can always be reverted or edited further at any time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Your version is good.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Edited accordingly. I wasn't sure whether to maintain the bolding on "rarely delete pages" that was in the previous version. I chose to keep it, but I'd be OK with not using bolding there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Obvious cases for deletion in vfdEdit

I'm wondering on why don't we have a policy on obvious results, that are unlikely to change. A good example of this is VFD#Somali Sea or VFD#AFL. It's obvious that there's zero chance of it being kept. I'm wondering on why does it have to be kept for 14 days and why not have a policy to delete it after seven days.

Here's the proposed addition:

  • If via vfd, the result is obvious, with an enough majority such as everyone voting keep or delete, it may be deleted after 7 days from the nomination. However, even if one user votes something different to the rest of the community, it must be kept for the full 14 days.

Does that look good? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy with that as a change for articles less than 6 months old, balanced with a change to 28 days for articles more than 5 years old (unless the editors that have made a significant contribution agree to deletion when it can be sooner). We are a travel site and it is quite possible that the one regular contributor who knows a location is travelling offline for 7 days. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Page creation vandalism"Edit

Swept in from the pub

I don't like this term as often the page creators seem to think they are helping in some way, although they are not. One editor has been creating a lot of articles that are completely blank, or are skeletons that don't even identify what region the town is in. I believe he is doing this to earn points in the Nigerian Expedition competition. He has ignored my post on his talk page asking if he plans to add travel content, and continued creating skeleton articles.

Do we have a policy on deleting articles created by a "page creation vandal"? Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. We do this to Brendan all the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with our policy. I think only the terminology needs to be changed. "Page creation" shouldn't be associated with vandalism, in my opinion. Disruptive page creation, unproductive page creation, and productive page creation are in my view the three different categories here, though some may be able to think of better terminologies for each of these ideas.
Disruptive page creation would be Brendan's or any vandal's page creation, or copyvio. A few of the Nigeria Expedition's articles are in this category due to copyvio.
Unproductive page creation is the creation of blank, but otherwise acceptable, pages. Some of the Nigeria Expedition's articles are in this category, such as those you've mentioned.
Productive page creation is the creation of useful articles. Many of the Nigeria Expedition's articles have useful travel information and are in this category. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
On the Nigeria Expedition talk page I've raised the issue that the editors who are creating useful articles are at a disadvantage in the competition to the few who are engaging in "unproductive page creation", the term I will use from now on. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the competition should consider rewarding by content, maybe by bytes or usable articles instead of total articles. Which account organizes the expedition? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
(just SHB) I don't think we do, but I have no objections in deleting them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The Nigerian edit-a-thon ends on January 31st. I would wait until the competition ends before deleting them en masse. Edriiic has told them on the Nigeria WhatsApp group about the important expanding the skeletons and I'm assuming that most of the editors will get around to expanding them. I agree that the lack of communication from one particular editor is a concern though. I'd ask Edriiic to encourage the new editors to reply on their user talk pages and give a rough timeframe on when they will expand each of the articles they've started. Gizza (roam) 00:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The editor in question has finally responded, and seems to be indicating that they plan to expand the articles, so I will not delete any of them. I have asked that they focus on doing so before they create any more new articles. They have already created a lot of articles, so I think they have a lot of article-building ahead of them. Ground Zero (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Previous discussion is at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles & the following section. Pashley (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
In particular, I think my comments at the end of Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Completely_empty_skeletons are rather good evidence that such things should usually be kept. Pashley (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
During my solo expedition to improve or redirect scores of very short articles, I came across so many skeleton articles that had sat unimproved for 10-15 years. The ones I redirected did not meet wv:wiaa in my opinion. It is not our policy that every point on the map qualifies for an article in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Abolishing the "don't delete real places" policyEdit

Swept in from the pub

While we have had this rule of "don't delete real places", I think it is time to abolish that rule. To be honest, I had never understood the purpose of that policy in the first place, and even more so with the deletion requests. At the moment, the only reason that we've been using to delete real places is because of a copyright violation, but with the recent Nigeria Expedition, many articles have also been deleted because they are just barebone skeletons or because they are copied from another article or Wikipedia without attribution, also making it a copyright violation but fixable. Then there has also been the Lake Como stub creating IP who also had many of their articles deleted.

Oba Akoko is a good example. As of Special:PermaLink/4348076, it has nothing but section headers, and the only reason that we have to not delete it is because of the "don't delete real places" rule. Otherwise, it's stubby, it does not serve travelers and a new user is much more likely to start a fresh new article than convert a redirect into an existing article owing to the preloaded skeletons that pop up when starting a new page.

And then we have the user who has created a bunch of Lake Como stubs, most of which are copyvios, but even if they weren't, they were stubby and they do not help at all. IMO, the traveler should come first, not new users.

Therefore, I propose to just abolish the policy that real places cannot be deleted and they can still go through the process through vfd should they be deleted (except in cases of page creation vandalism by the one Australian user who we all know). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you prefer m:Immediatism to m:Eventualism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think what we should have is exceptions to the policy, not its abolition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I definitely leans towards eventualism than immediatism but of the two choices (deletion vs redirecting) I prefer deletion because when you link to that article and it's red, it becomes clear that we don't have content on it, unlike a redirect where you see blue and are more likely to assume there is content when there is none. It's particularly apparent on project pages like Wikivoyage:World cities, Wikivoyage:Requested articles and some of the expedition pages where we list out cities that are both blue and redlinks and the reds are meant to signal articles that should eventual be created.
I still however, prefer keeping real places over both deleting and redirecting because it is much easier to expand an article with a skeleton than start from scratch. When I recreate an article that was deleted because it was too short, I use the latest deletion version as a base, which I can view only because I'm an admin. Similarly, I find articles to expand in Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, if the article prior to being redirected was connected to Wikidata, as is most often the case. But these methods are either not possible or well known for most editors, which is why I believe both deleting and redirecting stunt the long-term growth of Wikivoyage, though redirecting is worse. Gizza (roam) 05:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
There are three things we can do with stubs and skeleton articles:
A. Leave it alone for future growth,
B. Redirect to a nearby city or the region immediately above, or
C. Delete.
Having stubs and empty skeletons (A) does not put the reader first, it puts the project first. A reader who clicks on a blue link should get some information, and not a stub or a skeleton. Stubs and skeletons decrease the value of Wikivoyage to readers because of the annoyance factor. With the article skeletons, it is very easy to create a new article.
Not annoying readers is in the long-term interest of Wikivoyage because the more returning readers we get, the more editors we will have.
I know that some editors feel that redirecting to a nearby place or a region (B) also annoys readers if the articles don't say anything about the place the reader was hoping to find out about by clicking a blue link.
That really leaves deletion (C) as the best option for us. Readers navigating by using links won't be irritated by false promises. Those readers using Search to navigate will be disappointed by finding no results, but readers know that getting no results from a search is always a possibility. Ground Zero (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel like an extremely short article puts the project first. The median amount of time a reader spends on a page in less than a few seconds. This is true on basically all the wikis; readers often want just the most basic information (where's that again?). Also, by having a stub, we're enabling the Page Previews to provide that information even when people don't click all the way through. Having two sentences and a link to something else actually is helpful to these readers.
(I don't feel the same about a that has no content beyond the section headings.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
If it is just a line or two, it is more convenient for the reader to have that in a region article without a link. Ground Zero (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
If it's only in one article, and if that line or two won't interrupt the flow of the article, then you might be right. But would you want to have multiple articles each include a line or two, thus duplicating content across all of those articles?
And what if it would disrupt the article you're writing? You might want to write something "To find lower-cost accommodations during the music festival, look for options as far away as Boondocks to the north and Big City to the east". You probably don't want to double the length of that sentence by cramming "(a rural area in the North County on the side of the Big Mountain that is increasingly popular for cross-country skiing during the winter)" into the middle of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
If someone is just searching a place up to see where it is, aren't they more likely to use Wikipedia rather than a travel guide? Tai123.123 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't even have to be in a region article – it can be in a topic article (such as the redirect for Savage River National Park) (ps to Tai123.123, if someone is looking for a place just to see where it is, wouldn't they be using something like Google Maps or OpenStreetMap rather than Wikipedia?) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
When you are already on this site, why would you want to switch to another site? And if you did, you might wonder whether the location you found was actually the relevant one. There are more than 1,000 places in the world named San Jose. If you see one of the many San Joses mentioned in an article here, and you want to know where it is, then following the link should provide certainty. The traveler is actually served by the existence of San Jose (Palawan), even though it is not usable in its current state, and the traveler would not be better served by having a red link at Palawan#Cities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I said Wikipedia as it’s affiliated with Wikimedia and when one simply plugs a city name into a search engine it will be one of the first results (it will also have other basic information). Tai123.123 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Tai, "plugging a city name into the search engine" is never as quick and easy as "clicking the correct link". Also, if you do that for my example, you'll end up at w:en:San José, which lists 139 different articles, 138 of which are guaranteed to be the wrong one. Expecting people to do extra work (searching) and giving them a mostly-wrong and always-confusing answer (how confident are you that you could always guess which one of these places was mentioned at Wikivoyage?) is not really helping the traveler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep the policy, possibly with some exceptions made specific, e.g. copyvio articles. There is a lot of previous discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2014-2019#Deleting_NEW_empty_articles and the following sections. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talkcontribs) 13:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've been in support of permitting the deletion of real places for a while. We've had discussions about redirecting vs leaving articles a handful of times before with no resolve (this proposal being the latest proof of that). I think allowing a deletion option might help to end those debates. I believe last time this was discussed, someone mentioned possibly giving users a time limit to add enough content to prevent deletion. The idea seemed to have some tepid support as I recall, but we never implemented or tested it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that there's another solution for " redirecting to a nearby place or a region also annoys readers if the articles don't say anything about the place the reader was hoping to find out": Saying something about that place as part of the redirection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Creating new content is always an ideal solution. But when we are addressing situations where dozens or scores of articles have been created with no travel information, it's not a realistic one. Ground Zero (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
As an example, see the thousands of Puerto Rican skeletons currently nominated at vfd#Puerto Rico skeletons with a byte count lower than 600 created by Ligocsicnarf89 (talk · contribs). Our policy does not permit the deletion of those. As I mentioned, this is to allow real places to be nominated at vfd because as GZ mentions, it's not realistic. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
There are of course alternatives. The guidelines actually suggests we leave the articles alone, but enough editors are/have been dissatisfied with that to make it a non-solution. Editors could also add enough content to the articles to make them minimally viable articles and I believe Ground Zero has said that he tried to do that before making redirects, but this is not always possible and is unfair to expect of editors who may not know or care about the destination stubs created by others. This is also the issue with the redirects. If you do not have enough knowledge to make the article minimally viable, it is unlikely that you will have enough knowledge to provide meaningful information in the redirected article either, and just saying "This article also covers..." when it doesn't isn't enough. The deletion option just seems better than the other options. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikivoyage does permit deletions of page-creation vandalism. Allowing deletions of masses of pages with essentially no content that the article-starter hasn't gotten back to in months is not a stretch and I don't think it requires us to do anything other than make such situations exceptions to the existing policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Some batches of useless near-empty outlines are created in good faith, so applying "page creation vandalism" is an insult to the user. A slight rewording might suffice, but the rule was created for vandalism. I think batches of outline created for a project, where the participants (or the single user) disappeared or lost interest before adding content, could be deleted through VFD, if that seems what is best for the traveller.
  • An individual bare outline is not too frustrating for the reader (such things happen on wikis), but when a region contains many bare or weak outlines, they are frustrating, and likewise, if a user coming to the site mostly meets weak articles, they might not return. We need to keep the project and region wide proportion of useless articles low enough. We could discuss the outlines of a region at VFD.
  • Redirecting would make sense if people wouldn't otherwise find what we have to tell about the place, but people come there by a search, which would turn up the mention in the region article, or by links from other articles, which could go directly to the region, if that's what makes sense. Redirects do make sense in some cases, but not as general solution.
  • A link to the redirect from the redirect target (often the region) is confusing, and turning a redirect into an article requires some expertise. The existing workarounds are suboptimal.
  • If there is something salvageable in a to-be-deleted outline, it can be moved to the region article or the talk page. There are other possible solutions to this. Of course, if there is enough salvageable material, the outline should probably be kept or properly merged.
LPfi (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"if a user coming to the site mostly meets weak articles, they might not return": This sounds plausible, but most of our traffic is via search engines, and I doubt that people spend a lot of time remembering which site they used in the past when the search engine's snippet looks promising. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I for one remember bad sites if I encounter them often. I might click the link, but click "back" as soon as I recognise the layout. –LPfi (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
We could also fall into the trap if a user looks at a terrible empty page on the museum piece and then thinks this may be the same site, but this really isn't the place for that and it's off topic to what this original thread was about so I'll stop it there.
However, it is worth noting that I have never seen an outline skeleton pop up in my search results. I won't comment any further on that though, as it's off topic, but I think the point is clear. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In light of a recent discussion and to prevent this discussion from dying, I propose we change the policy to the following:

When possible, we try and redirect real places into neighbouring or nearby destinations when possible. However, when that is not possible, or if it is not in the best interests of the traveller, deletion may be discussed at votes for deletion. Exceptions of when real places can be speedily deleted include copyvios, if the page was created in bad faith, vandalism or when most of the article violates wv:outside.

Does that seem like a suitable compromise? That way, deletions of real places can be discussed at vfd because the current policy does not permit so. Pinging participants of this discussion: @LPfi, WhatamIdoing, Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, DaGizza, ChubbyWimbus, Pashley, Tai123.123:. Before I finish off my comment, here's a quick list of who's in favour and against the proposal:

In favour of deleting real places:

  • SHB2000 (myself)
  • Ground Zero
  • ChubbyWimbus

Against deleting real places and in favour of redirecting:

  • Pashley
  • WhatamIdoing

Can't tell or don't fall into either of the above two categories:

  • Ikan Kekek – which I'm judging based on their comments, is to keep the policy, but all the real places discussed at vfd are made as exceptions.
  • Tai123.123 – made two comments that were not enough to judge which side they were taking.
  • Gizza – against deleting, but also against redirecting. In favour of keeping.
  • LPfi – who seems to be taking a stance either side.

To those that oppose deleting and favour redirecting, I would like for you to reconsider your opinion. Just because real places can be nominated for deletion, it doesn't mean they have to. It is not like we're going to nominate every single damn article which looks stubby to us, and the only reasons why there's a lot of real places currently nominated for vfd right now is because there's a lot of Nigeria articles that do not serve the traveller. This new amended policy discourages nominating regular articles, unless there's good reason to so after these Nigeria articles have been cleaned up, it is unlikely we'll be seeing any real places nominated for deletion, and maybe a maximum of maybe five pages (if we don't have any sort of major projects or expeditions like this).

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Most readers have no idea what "wv:outside" refers to (I didn't), and by "violating" it, you mean including only listings of places out of town, so let's please be clear. It seems to me, we are still talking about exceptions to policy. This would be my proposed language:

Articles for real places that cannot support an article are normally redirected to articles for nearby destinations. However, when that is not possible, or if it is deemed not to be in the best interests of the traveller, they may be nominated for deletion at votes for deletion. In cases of copyright violation or large-scale page-creation vandalism, cases in which all of the information is about places outside the destination, or persistent lack of information on the order of including only the text "[Destination name] is in Region name", speedy deletion may be necessary and appropriate. In some such cases, especially deletions due to copyright violation, good-faith recreation of the deleted article in a way that solves the problem is welcome.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support – your version seems clearer to me and also addresses on whether recreating an article is permitted or not. Only thing I'd suggest is replacing "[City name]" with "[Destination name]" as parks, city districts and rural areas are also included. Not sure about dive guides. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I think this addresses all of the concerns and may help alleviate the redirect discussions by providing a deletion option without completely abandoning our "don't delete real places" policy which is mostly good. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
SHB2000, I substituted your term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Support, The new version is worded in a less ambiguous manner and strikes a balance between both the redirecting and the deleting sides. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Support. What isn't said in that paragraph can be sorted out at VFD, and language can be added later as appropriate, such as if some class of articles is brought up there too often. –LPfi (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it will be important to move this discussion to Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion, as that's the intuitive place to find it in the future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
or Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Support We clearly need something like this. I think that most cases should be VFD, not speedy. (We also should consider what the rules will be for any future competitions to avoid mass creation of articles with little useful content.) AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I'd note that the VfD thread on the multiple articles about Puerto Rico helped facilitate a great editing project, whereas speedily deleting everything would have been less useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that, for competitions, it might be useful to recommend that page creation not 'count' unless at least three useful listings, including one place to sleep, get added. We can't force contest organizers to adopt a recommendation, just like we can't force contest organizers to tell us about their contest plans in advance, but I suspect that most of them would be happy to follow our advice. (This proposal sounds fine to me, too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
As there has been no comment for two weeks, I have plunged forward and updated the deletion policy to reflect Ikan's wording – putting an end to our "don't delete real places" policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I still think this creates exceptions and does not put that policy to an end. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the new policy more so that you can nominate real places for deletion, but it is strongly discouraged where as the previous policy did not allow for exceptions at all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I, too, support Ikan's proposed new version of this policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Before redirecting anything, there should be some minimum requirement that the target article at least boldly mention the redirected place at least once (Wikipedia's redirect style "Plastic window glass, also known as Perspex, Lexan or Plexiglas after the most common trade names, is..." specifically listing all of the redirected names in the intro blurb) and preferably have at least one relevant listing in either the main body or the "Nearby" section. There's no point redirecting Toronto (Prince Edward Island) if the target article doesn't mention it and doesn't provide anything to see or do there. 66.102.87.40 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    The English Wikipedia doesn't do this consistently, and w:en:Paracetamol brand names should be all the explanation why. I particularly do not want to see us develop a rule that says "If it's not mentioned in the current version of the article, then the redirect should be deleted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    Often the reader can be expected to know that they reached the right article, and all they need may be the Get in and Get around info. In other cases a redirect without further mention is confusing and frustrating. We cannot list all suburbs and neighbourhoods of large cities (even in cases where the city article to look for isn't obvious), so there needs to be a sound judgement call; if a redirect will be confusing or frustrating, either add a note or don't redirect. –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    100 percent agree. An alternate for cities with city districts, could be something like Sydney/City East#Orientation listing all the neighbourhoods and such a redirect like Woolloomooloo wouldn't seem confusing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Deletion policy".