Votes for deletion Shortcuts: WV:VFD vfd This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our deletion policy. If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article. The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page. Nominating Add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons. The basic format for a deletion nomination is: ===[[Chicken]]=== Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~ Commenting All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is: ===[[Chicken]]=== * '''Delete'''. Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~ When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~"). Deleting, or not If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it. If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects. If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion. If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion. If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion. If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above. When deleting an article, check "What links here". Either remove the newly-broken links from the articles or point them somewhere else. Inbound redirects to a deleted page should either be deleted or redirected elsewhere. When deleting a template, either replace it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it. Otherwise, remove the template from all pages that use the template. However, do not delete the template first – this breaks links and will cause a swathe of red links, requiring a lot of cleanups. Archiving After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted). When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected. See also: Deletion log Votes for deletion/Archives - the VFD archives index page Votes for undeletion Category:Vfd - A page that collects every image and article that is currently tagged with the vfd template.

I had to speedily delete all but two phrasebooks created by this user as they were all copied verbatim from Wikipedia, with no attempt to even adapt it to Wikivoyage's MoS nor give the relevant attribution (making it a copyvio). For the other two (Abron phrasebook and Jiru phrasebook), I copyedited the ledes so they are not near identical to Wikipedia, but I hold no trust in the other 49 articles being copyvio-free, and we definitely do not want to reward disruptive behaviour here (all these were likely created in order to game the m:Explore Africa contest, which is why these articles were created on a mass-creation spree). It's also worth noting that all these articles are low-quality and deleting these will not result in the removal of useful travel content.

Listing all of them below:

• Adenta East
• Agona
• Ahwiaa
• Akatsi
• Akim Oda
• Alberton
• Anloga – merged with Accra
• Asafo
• Ashaiman
• Atebubu
• Bekwai
• Bibiani — improved. Ground Zero (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Black Desert
• Boksburg — this should be merged into Ekurhuleni. Ground Zero (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Bono East — Merged into Ashanti-Kwahu: no need for subdistrict yet. Ground Zero (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Carletonville around 80 per cent of the article was copied from w:Carletonville
• Gbawe
• Goaso
• Jan Kempdorp (lede was entirely copied from w:Jan Kempdorp without attribution)
• Kariega
• Keta — improved, no copyvio. Ground Zero (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Lashibi
• Makhanda
• Malmesbury (Western Cape) Lede was entirely copied from w:Malmesbury, South Africa without credit.
• Mampong
• Nalerigu — improved by user:Dnshitobu, no copyvio. Ground Zero (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Nkoranza
• Nsuatre - Lede (only text in article) is copied from w:Nsoatre, which also raises the question of how is this place spelt.
• Nyamagabe
• Nyaruguru
• Oti (confirmed as an unaccredited copyvio from w:Oti Region on Dec 8, 11:52)
• Prestea
• Rwamagana — improved, attributed. Ground Zero (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Sakumono
• Saldanha — improved Ground Zero (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Savelugu — improved, attributed. Ground Zero (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Secunda
• Suhum
• Tafo
• Taifa — I propose to merge this to Accra Ground Zero (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Speedily deleted as an unaccredited copyvio.

• Tarkwa
• Tembisa — I propose to merge this article into Ekurhuleni Ground Zero (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Vryheid— improved, no copyvio. Ground Zero (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Walewale — improved, attributed. Ground Zero (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Wenchi — improved, no copyvio. Ground Zero (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Winneba
• Yeji — improved, attributed Ground Zero (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Yendi — no copyvio, good condition Ground Zero (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

If any of these have been copyedited to the point where it can be kept, please do add a note beside the listed article (e.g., something like "improved by SHB2000 on Dec 8, 2022"), but until then, I do not trust that these are copyvio-free, or have not been copied verbatim from Wikipedia with no attribution provided. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• If there is no improvement to these articles over the next two weeks, then we should delete them. On their talk page, Dnshitobu made it clear that they are expecting other people to improve these articles. We know from experience that that approach doesn't work in Wikivoyage: we don't have enough traffic on this site for phrasebook stubs to develop organically. And we can't allow copyright infringement. Ground Zero (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • I've reviewed all of the articles. There are a few that have no information of practical use for travellers. Most of them, however, follow a simple formula: cut and paste information from Wikipedia, plus 2-5 listings of hotels or restaurants with no information about them except for coordinates, and a map. The intention seems to be to create as many articles as possible, with the minimum effort. But the listings and the map are of some use to travellers, and Africa is a region that is under-served by Wikivoyage. I think we should consider whether we want to delete these. The phrasebooks-without-phrases, though, need some content or they should go. We should also consider whether these editing competitions actually are a benefit to the projects as they are being run. I think their value is questionable. Ground Zero (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Delete unless they are greatly improved. (Also please can we review m:Explore Africa/Article Suggestions, where some of these are listed.) AlasdairW (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Yendi might be developed enough to keep, depending on how much was copied and pasted. The problem is, as you said, we can't trust this user's contributions. Therefore, I agree with you: delete all unless something changes significantly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Yendi does not have any text in common with its Wikipedia article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking that. We should also do a web search to see if the text comes from anywhere else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek@Ground Zero@SHB2000 I totally understand the angle you all are coming from but instantly deleting all the articles I have created without recourse to time is not appropriate. Imagine I create an article today, hoping to improve it tomorrow then it is deleted, what benefit would you deleting when it could have been improved in the next couple of days or weeks. Giving users the benefit of the doubt is very good in a volunteer space because the efforts people make to contribute is a lot of energy we need to appreciate. Trust me, these articles would not be left the same with time but if you delete them instantly, you have only wasted someones precious time and infringed upon the knowledge sharing we all care about. Dnshitobu (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @User:Dnshitobu, Dnshitobu: your articles are not going to be deleted instantly. The votes-for-deletion process usually takes a couple of weeks, and if there are signs that a user is improving articles, editors will usually allow more time. We'd rather have more useful articles than delete articles. If someone creates a bunch of stubs and shows no sign of being willing to improve them, and no-one else improves them within a couple of weeks, they get deleted.

SHB2000, who nominated these articles noted "If any of these have been copyedited to the point where it can be kept, please do add a note beside the listed article...." In other words, improved articles won't be deleted. I've improved four of them already. I hope you will work on some, too. Don't worry about getting them a done in two weeks: as long as progress is being made, there will be no rush to delete. Ground Zero (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dnshitobu, let's discuss your statement, in particular, "deleting all the articles I have created without recourse to time is not appropriate".

1. All the articles I speedily deleted were copyvios; copyvios are not allowed on this site, and it is your responsibility to know that (and I'm surprised I have to tell this to a sysop on dagwiki)
2. I listed the other articles here, and did not speedily delete them, so we can discuss them. That's what VFD is for.
3. I did not list all your articles for deletion.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's been 15 days. Have we made a decision about these articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The simple reason for this nomination is that its scope is unclear. While it has only been a month since this was created, it was concluded* on the talk page. To save a few clicks, I'll paste the discussion as of Dec 13, 22:22 below:

"Billionaire's social calendar" seems to be a colloquial phrase, rather that "a set of events". Is there any organization that sets this list or organizes events and guest lists. A Google search does not come up with much beyond some old media articles and a couple of wealth management companies. Should Wikivoyage have articles about phrases used in the media? Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This article really makes no sense, NGL. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Where is it a colloquial phrase? I've never heard of it as a phrase. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My girlfriend hadn't heard of this phrase, either. However, it's a pretty random selection of events. You don't have to be a billionaire to go to Art Basel or skiing in Aspen, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I realize it has not been a year since this article was created, should this be listed on Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion because of its unclear scope?

1. As you mention, you don't have to be a billionaire to visit these events
2. These events are rather arbitrary (even the article says "there is no official calendar")
3. The scope of this article is unclear

SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether we should list it before a year goes by. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess this can be made as an exception, because there's no clear scope. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If it is not a valid itinerary, and I don't think it is, we should not wait a year for it to develop into a more detailed invalid itinerary. Ground Zero (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That should sum it all. Some of the points raised were that you don't have to be a billionaire to visit these events, and they're subjective. The article even says that there's no official calendar.

*Specifically, the three of us (Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek and myself) who participated in the discussion as of Dec 13, 22:22 (UTC+11) couldn't find any existence of such a thing outside colloquialisms

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment - I'd like to know what Yvwv considers to be the scope and point of this article before deciding, but at the moment it seems to be a personal itinerary.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment: The deletion process deviates from common practice to keep itineraries for 12 months until challenging them. If this practice does not work, we should find a new one. There are several sources to the concept, one of them being this documentary video: [1] /Yvwv (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with TT that, at best, this is a personal itinerary, so the 12-month rule doesn't apply. There is no sense in keeping an article around to let it develop if the concept is out of scope for Wikivoyage. In my opinion, an YouTube video is not something we should base an article on. If there were an official Billionaires' Social Calendar(TM) list of events, there would be an argument for it. This cones across more like paparazzi press sort of stuff. Ground Zero (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't create this article, but I assume the point is that you can pick up some events where billionaires go to see each other. Either you would turn up to see them too (but I assume you don't get a seat next to Jeff Bezos at Wimbledon or Cannes, so that's sort of moot), or you would go there to feel for a moment you are one of them while mingling among the commoners at the event. To fulfil those goals there is no need for a proper itinerary, nor for an official calender. However, I am not convinced that people go to Cannes because billionaires do. The theme seems more appropriate for a sociological study, but I am open for arguments on who is interested and why, and how to develop the article to actually be useful for them in a travel context. –LPfi (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

If it can be re-worked to become a proper travel itinerary then I am open to keeping this. There are indeed some events on this list that you can attend like the Kentucky Derby, though you will be seated in a separate section and not be rubbing shoulders with the likes of Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. But you would probably never get the chance to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos and rub shoulders with the billionaires there. The dog2 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. Outside the scope of a travel guide like ours, unneeded. Maybe it could have a place in WikiBillionaire, but not here. Ibaman (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep for now. I am somewhat skeptical of this article, but after reflecting on it, I think we should probably stay with normal procedure, which is to allow a year for this to either become a topic that's in scope or not before nominating it for deletion. I keep in mind previous experience with topics like Istanbul to Izmir, which was claimed not to be a real itinerary article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep for now. We do have articles about routes with no precise definition, like Banana Pancake Trail or Yunnan tourist trail and at least one travel topic where we had an interesting argument over what to include Talk:Grand_old_hotels#Definition_of_grand_old. Pashley (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Ikan Kekek, Pashley: But this isn't an itinerary article, this is a topic article, which, as far as I'm aware, has no one-year limit and can be nominated at any time. In saying that, Pashley, you do make a good argument regarding grand old hotels, but the point is that you don't need to be a billionaire to visit these events. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  And just as I hit the reply button, I found a statement on the top of Category:Outline topics, though I couldn't find a policy supporting that claim. I should also mention that Istanbul to Izmir was an itinerary article, unlike this which is a topic article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's classed as an itinerary. Look at the bottom of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, someone wasn't reading the article properly, then. I stand corrected and please ignore my two comments above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fails to pass the Wikivoyage:Bodies of water policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I have reached out to the author to ask if they are planning to expand the article into an itinerary or travel topic that would be permitted under Wikivoyage:Bodies of water. Let's put this on hold to wait for a response. Ground Zero (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• I don't see how it fails the guideline: it is a park article and supposedly covers also the area around the lake. The problem is that it lacks content: there is a Wikipedia-like Understand and an all too general Stay safe. The other sections should be filled in to get it to usable status. If the "a couple of attractions" part poses a problem, just use the See and Do sections (or a See and do) to describe why the park is worth visiting and what people usually do on their visit, somebody else may be able to put in proper listings, at least if there is contact information for a visitor centre. I note that the user has created several similar articles recently, the advice applies to them too, and I hope they can be expanded before long (but the articles were created less than two weeks ago). –LPfi (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • That reasoning could be applied to any body of water, which would mean that the Wikivoyage:Bodies of water policy has no effect. I don't think we want articles that describe a body of water the way an encyclopedia article does. If there were travel content, then it would be justified as an itinerary, park or travel topic. But there isn't. Ground Zero (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Not any body of water. We have extraregions such as Saimaa and Lake Geneva, and this is a park article like Bothnian Sea National Park. The article should not have its scope defined by the shores and if it hasn't, it's not about the lake but on an area that happens to include and be named after a lake. You don't have to start with the Sleep listings to pass the sleep test; this is classified as a park article and it will be a park article when the empty sections have been filled out. The article can be nominated later if it isn't developed (or rather: redirected to the nearest town). –LPfi (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is it a park? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It uses the park template and says "It is surrounded by a number of protected areas, including the Lake Burullus Fish Reserve and the Lake Burullus Protected Area. [...] a popular destination for birdwatching and other forms of ecotourism". –LPfi (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's listed on Nationalparks.Africa as a "protected area stretching over 460 square kilometers," but that's not an official site. It might be appropriate to have a park article about it, if it can be developed as such. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment Lake Burullus is listed in meta:Explore_Africa/Article_Suggestions#National_Parks_and_Game_Reserves, as one of the suggested articles in the Explore Africa competition. It is one of 30 w:Egyptian Protectorates. AlasdairW (talk) The preceding comment was dated on December 16, 2022, 23:40 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has been created as a stub, so now participants will have no interest in developing it. I have been trying to cajole Dnshitobu into expanding the stubs they have created, and led by example by improving many of those stubs to useful articles, but to no avail. The model that "someone else" will improve it sometime has been a failure. What we end up with is a travel guide littered with stubs and non-travel articles like this one. I'm not interested in expanding this article, and if none of the other participants in this discussion are interested, it's not going to happen. See Amish and Mennonites where the bare minimum of information was added to save it from being deleted, and then it was abandoned. The creator moved on to start Billionaires' Social Calendar, another non-article, and those who said "but it might grow" left it as a crappy article. Ground Zero (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

And after making edits to Billionaires' Social Calendar for only one day, has now debated another cheaply article, Holy Roman Empire. Sigh. Ground Zero (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

That new article isn't even 1.5k bytes, making it the site's second shortest topic article (excluding list articles like equipment), only behind surfing (source). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We could merge/redirect this article to Nile for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

That would also work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article's length should explain it all (and no major edits since Jan 30, 2021). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. It's a potentially useful topic, but if it hasn't gotten any better than this since its creation in 2015, there's no good reason to keep it if it's not significantly improved in two weeks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Delete. Agree. I also don't trust the list of locations: is e.g. Toucheng a globally important surf destination or just a place with a beach where some go surfing? Neither article tells. Are the Beach Cities the main surf destination of the United States? Is the list totally arbitrary? Nobody is served by the article in its current state, there is no work done on it, and if somebody is going to write a real article on the topic, this stub doesn't help. –LPfi (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep —I agree that it was a useless article, but it is one that Wikivoyage should have, so I've starting improving it. Plus, there is a delightful perversity in a Canadian rescuing a surfing article nominated for deletion by an Australian. Next up, I'll write an article on "going walkabout". ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yet another glorified stub added for points in a competition. No useful information for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. Another attempt to game the system. NGL, this just looks like a low-quality Wikipedia article without citations, if you ask me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply