Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2021

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← May 2021 Votes for deletion archives for June 2021 (current) July 2021 →

A body of water is not a valid travel article per WV:WIAA. This is an unnecessary disambiguation page. Ground Zero (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no see and do. One pub and that's all. Created by KevRobbAU, who has now left, it was created quite a while back. There's no town nearby, and it's sort of those towns that have no industries.

And while I appreciate that we don't delete real places, there is no town nearby. And Walgett is an hour away, and a traveller won't search this up - because there's nothing but a few houses and a pub/bar. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1: I'm also nominating Collarenebri, as this has a same issue - large area, no see, do or even sleep. And the listing is far away, which is pointless.

  • Keep both, per AlasdairW and W:Collarenebri which states "There are many [Aboriginal] artefacts and significant sites along the Barwon River [...] there are some very old aboriginal carved trees [...] [and] a well maintained Aboriginal cemetery just outside the town which is unique to the area, with graves covered in crushed and melted glass and decorated with items that represent that person.[...] Many of the buildings in Collarenebri today date back to c. 1910. As below, these articles just need the right person to come along and develop them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's for retired KevRobbSCO, or I might improve them, if I find the right location. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be merged with Mungindi, which is only about a 100km drive. Not too far away SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we should delete this too, since bus terminals don't get their own articles on Wikivoyage.

Outcome - deleted speedily as out of scope. Ground Zero (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a major airport to me, and minor airports with low complexity do not get their own articles. Of course, I could be wrong here, and I'm happy for our Nigerian editors to make a case for why we should have an article for this airport.

Anyway, it gives a figure of 350-odd thousand passengers for 2015, less than 1000 a day. This airport is far too small to rate an article. Pashley (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome - deleted speedily as copyright violation. Ground Zero (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary extra hierarchal page. Not much use, and most people often associate the continent with Oceania, and not just the two countries of Aus and PNG. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sahul is not a continent, and was never a name for Australia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sahul is a name used for the Australian mainland, Tasmania and PNG combined in the context of archeology and prehistoric times like during the last Ice Age when they were all combined into one landmass. See File:Map_of_Sunda_and_Sahul.png. It can be deleted now though it could be a viable travel topic/redirect (Australia during the Ice Age) down the road. Gizza (roam) 05:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article that looks very much like an essay, and not a travel guide. Wouldn't it be better to nuke it, and let someone else recreate it, or can it be merged? Also, 50% of the edits were done by Brendan John Williams/Telstra SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is appalling & whatever else we do, nearly all its text should go. It is definitely a real place & policy is not to delete those. w:Abbiategrasso says it has a population over 30,000, so not a "speck on the map" that could almost automatically be redirected.
WP says it is part of Metropolitan Milan, so we could create a metro area article & redirect to that. Or redirect to Milan? Or just keep this article and trim the text radically? Someone who knows the area can decide. Pashley (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikivoyage:Wikivoyagers by location, User:User:Lkcl it would be a good person to respond, but they've been inactive since January. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, let’s revert the Telstra edit (which is smaller) and focus on the body of the article. As this is a real place, it seems like a redirect candidate rather than a deletion candidate. Therefore, I’d recommend moving the discussion to Talk:Abbiategrasso but others may feel it is a valid outright deletion candidate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd've usually reverted the Brendan edit by now, but for once, it was something unusually constructive. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it is, good catch. Since this discussion lasts for 14 days, and the contributor who wrote it appears to be active (and a good faith contributor) here, I'd wait to see if s/he does more to improve the article. I'm not ready to write it off yet, even if there's too much content for one or two sections and no content for the others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Luchy04 is not a sock of the Telstraman, in my opinion. Why? The Telstraman never or almost never types edit summaries; if you look at this user's contributions page, they often do. I agree that the article in question is hugely bloated, but I think the solution is to delete the bloat, not the article. I'm unconvinced on the question of whether to make it a redirect; that would depend on how much other content could be added and how likely it would be for someone to add it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now s/he's replied to a talk page message, so definitely not a sock of that user. I will vote to Keep the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Telstra sock is User:Artullo672, not Luchy04. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 22:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a whack at fixing the Understand section. Comment or corrections solicited.
The See section is at least as bad. Do we have a volunteer to fix that? Pashley (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The understand section is looking a lot better now. Thanks for fixing it Pashley! And if I didn't get disoriented by just reading the see section, I'd do it, but after reading the first three lines, I lost track of where I am. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite knowing nothing about obstetrics, I took a run at doing the See section. It might call for more surgery yet. But I think we should keep this now. Ground Zero (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have downgraded this from speedy deletion after some of the copyright material has been removed. I have rewritten parts of it, and added some new information. I think this is an article we should have. If copyvio material remains, please remove it. If anyone has other information to add, please do so. Ground Zero (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I seem to remember now a discussion in which we decided that revision history doesn’t have to be deleted in case of copyvio in a past edit. With that in mind I don’t advocate deleting now, but would like to see more non copyvio content added to the article before voting to keep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping that @AmyCutie: can help with more information. Ground Zero (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: while I agree that AmyCutie has not heeded our warnings, this is now a very different article than the one the she created with copyright text from other websites. Ground Zero (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I was thinking of a different user. Got both these users mixed up. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a real place better described in its own article. We should not through out significant work by others because of what we think about the original author (I haven't acquainted myself to her edits, so have no opinion on her). I trust that the wordings have been changed enough not to infringe on any copyrights (there is no copyright on the facts). –LPfi (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outcome - speedily kept as ineligible for deletion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real place and is not an alt name for Australia. Also unlikely search term, and also the term Sahul is often a controversial one - I'm not going to tell you why, because usually the info is suppressed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A web search on "Sahul controversy" produced no useful results. Why is the name often controversial and why do you want to assert that and then say you're not going to tell us why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's against what Indigenous Australians say when they came to Australia. Often, the Sahul thing is suppressed or simply not covered by media, and hence why you get no results about this. Infact, I didn't even know about this, until I spoke to an Aboriginal elder at Mungo National Park. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for extra clarification, it's just against the Out of Africa theory. And plus, while this may be slightly controversial, it's not as controversial as Lemuria. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sonable place to expect to find when searching on Oz. Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a disambig page. Pashley (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make it a disambig [see below]. The first version should not be retained. –LPfi (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The related Tokaj-Hegyalja page became an Extraregion, so no pages will be added to this category. --City-busz (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedy deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that is unused, as I've just fixed all the templates with this deliberate incorrect spelling. Also, we don't have redirects for usablepark, usableairport or whatever. Also, who doesn't know the spelling of "usable"? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's incorrect about it? Oxford says it's a legitimate spelling. https://www.lexico.com/definition/usable The fact that you found it necessary to "fix" all these "incorrect" spellings means that many people expect the useable spelling. The redirect should obviously remain. Also, who doesn't know the spelling of "useable"? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never known someone to use "useable" and my grammarly automatically corrects it to "usable". Also, I assumed the many were just typos, and if it were deleted, then one would instantly know it's the other. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Grammarly. I used it once, then promptly uninstalled it when it proved itself a piece of garbage. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does explain when you see me editing a page, auto correcting it to Australian spelling. Sucks at times, but it really helps at others. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I had just changed the pages that had {{useablecity}} to {{usablecity}} nothing else. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"useable" gets 19.4 million Google hits, far more than I'd have expected. 86.3 million for "usable". Pashley (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Nomination withdrawn. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If, as I would contend, an article being considered for deletion (or, for that matter, an addition being considered for reversion) should be judged purely on the text then this should be kept & my comment on the talk page stands:
It is not much of an article, but better than nothing. We have plenty of similarly weak articles on similarly small & obscure towns.
On the other hand, if the origin should be considered, then pages created by (or additions made by) known vandals or their sock puppets should be reverted on sight. This appears to be the majority view among admins & I'm fighting an uphill battle here.
On the third hand, nothing at Wikivoyage:Deletion policy justifies deleting the this article & that page explicitly says:
Simply asserting that a page does not fit within our goals is not sufficient for a deletion rationale, which needs to reference specific policy.
If you think the deletion here is justified, then the policy article also needs changes. I have not checked, but I suspect other policy articles might need change to justify some of the reversions being done. Pashley (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason is that the Tesltraman has amply justified a lack of trust, in that he's repeatedly copied and pasted from other pages, including not only Wikipedia but various "copyright, all rights reserved" pages. Sometimes, he changes a few words and makes some sentences ungrammatical, but it's an extremely poor paraphrase at best, and still an obvious act of plagiarism. We've chosen not to waste time checking every crappy article he starts for plagiarism, since he's a habitual repeat offender. Would you like to prove a negative in this case, Pashley? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So can someone justify User_talk:SHB2000#Star_Wars_tourism. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek:, since you've been dealing with Brendan frequently, when was his first sock? and was it User talk:Brendan John Williams, or did he have other accounts before?
Sorry for interrupting again, but I believe it’s in the user ban nominations archive. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to feel sorry. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This region was renamed to Southern Central Portugal, with a corresponding Category:Southern Central Portugal. The old region category in now empty and unneeded. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedy deleted. Ground Zero (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had created this category thinking that it would be of some use, but it's not and stands empty. Faial is an island in the Azores region of Portugal and is classified as a city/destination for Wikivoyage purposes. It has a single municipality, Horta, which redirects to it. The island is unlikely to need subdivision, so the region category is unnecessary. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This region was created apparently with no consensus. It overlaps existing regions Douro Litoral and Minho. Portugal region discussions have elicited little or no conversation: Talk:Northern Portugal#Regions, Talk:Portugal#Regions_2021. I have taken the initiative of updating the breadcrumbs of the two cities that were added the "region" to fall under Douro Litoral instead, and I believe that the Tâmega e Sousa region page and its associated category (now empty) should be deleted. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid article per wiaa. Also does not provide any useful info about the event, and the contributor has only 5 edits. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2021&oldid=4924060"