This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SHB2000 (talk | contribs) at 11:07, 26 September 2022 (→Greina Walking Tour).

Latest comment: 2 years ago by SHB2000 in topic September 2022


Votes for deletion

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:

September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago36 comments9 people in discussion

To put it this way, this is not a travel article, this is an encyclopedia article with a few editors' opinions. It currently has no travel content in it for the last eight years, and I'm struggling to think what will even make this article travel-related. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • A clear failure of WIAA. The Soviet Union article only mentions the CIS in passing. A short paragraph on the commonwealth could be added to the end of the 'History' section of that article, and then the CIS article can go, by merging and redirecting if content is reused, otherwise by deletion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • If CIS had developed into something like the European Union, and if the article had developed into a travel article over the last 8 years, there would be justification for the article. But neither has occurred, so this is more like Organization of American States, ASEAN, African Union, and NATO, none of which have articles, just redirects at most. Wikivoyage should not host would-be encyclopedia articles. Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • The CIS is travel relevant in that its citizens are treated as a group in several countries for visas etc. Any links (about half a dozen from mainspace) should be checked for not relying on that article. –LPfi (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Information for people travelling on passports from CIS countries to other countries should be in the articles of the destination countries. There is no need to duplicate it in this article (not that this article provides that information any way). Ground Zero (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • There might be a "travellers from CIS-countries ...". But OK, citizens of those should know they are, at least if we spell the abbreviation out. There might also be something special about travellers entering from CIS-countries, in which case the countries should be told explicitly. I don't know whether there are such cases. –LPfi (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Redirect to the Soviet Union article. I think that's the most logical thing to do. The dog2 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Redirect to the Soviet Union article. Maybe to a section there with content merged from here. Pashley (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Redirect to the Soviet Union article. There isn't any useful travel information in this article, and the SU article won't provide any sites related to the CIS that readers can visit, but this seems like the path of least resistance. Maybe we will learn that Wikivoyage should not try to be a gazetteer, but focus on travel articles instead. Ground Zero (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • What's the advantage to not deleting this non-article? I'd tend to support deletion, but I'd like to read a travel-based argument for not doing so. OK, LPfi gave one, but it seems like a thin reed, though not something that would be best redirected to an article about a defunct political entity. Anything else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
It affects visas & is a possible search term. Pashley (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
But how does redirecting it to Soviet Union address visas? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
We could redirect to Soviet Union#Aftermath, mention the CIS there, list the countries and add some comments on the relations between those countries. I think that is travel relevant for the SU article and would be meaningful for those who searched for (or clicked) CIS. –LPfi (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Exactly. I'd be really surprised if a traveller looks up our Soviet Union article to find the visa requirements for Belarus. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I remember back in the day, Nickelodeon did a show called "Global Guts", where they featured a team from the "CIS", which was a combined team of a few former Soviet countries like Russia, Ukraine and Georgia. Someone who watches re-runs of that show could potentially search for the CIS, given that they were competing against the US, UK, Spain, Germany and so on. The dog2 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
What? Is that what Wikivoyage is to be? A reference for people who watch re-runs of TV shows? Why don't we focus on being a travel guide? Maybe we need a clearer mission statement so we can clear out the clutter being added that makes us look like a weak imitation of Wikipedia. Ground Zero (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm just saying that I think it's a reasonable search term. Re-directing to the Soviet Union article is the most logical thing to do in my view because the CIS was formed from the ashes of the Soviet Union. Some older maps from the 1990s actually labelled the former Soviet Union minus the Baltic states as the "CIS". The dog2 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree. The term pops up in travel literature, even in our articles, so it needs an explanation. A redirect and good content at the target avoids the need for explanations where we want to use the term. I think Soviet Union#Aftermath works well as such a target. –LPfi (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep or merge and redirect. I think that this is term that a reader may find in paper travel guides. Somebody who reads a newspaper article on visiting Kazakhstan may come here for more information on the Commonwealth of Independent States. If we delete this article then they may end up in Commonwealth of Australia or one of the other article or redirects with Commonwealth in the name and be confused. AlasdairW (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • As is stated above in a different way, my concern with deleting this article outright is that there could be international travel/visa related concerns that a CIS article could address. It does not appear that the current article covers this, however. I'm not sure I agree with redirecting to Soviet Union as the constituent states of the two states are/were not the same. I'd prefer to delete the article unless someone adds international travel information to the article during the nomination period. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Aren't all the CIS countries former Soviet republics (or something de facto similar)? The Soviet Union is relevant for all the CIS in any case. That some other countries broke away without joining the CIS is irrelevant for the relevance in my opinion – but relevant for the discussion on the CIS. –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the one-year rule for itineraries; the article has not been edited by a human since 2018. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Needs a map. If no-one adds one, you propose to delete and not merge/redirect the information already in the article? I wouldn't agree with that unless the relevant information is already in the relevant articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
    I couldn't find Puzatsch, but otherwise the route seems possible to follow on OSM. I added a {{mapframe}}, but a topographic map would be much more useful. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
    And the route added, as a crude approximation. I assume anybody taking the route will either have a good map and be able to make their own decisions on the best route, or rely on fingerposts and other route markings. I have no way to know what path is the best one (I haven't been hiking in the Alps). –LPfi (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I withdraw my nomination upon improvements by LPfi. Thank you for improving the article. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I realiae this is going to be controversial, so I'll keep it short. Namely, it's and outline article eligible for deletion per the one-year policy and there's not a lot of travel content in it; in fact, the only travel content is the time it takes. It does have an understand section, but it's overly encyclopedic and a traveller can learn the exact same thing about it by going to the encyclopedia. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Delete unless someone creates a map and connects the Biblical (and maybe in certain instances, Talmudic or midrashic) accounts directly with each suggested stop, such that a particular verse is given for each location listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the one-year rule for itineraries, unclear scope, and simply lists a bunch of locations without descriptions. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the one-year rule for itineraries. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are there any good reasons not to think that the work here was written by the infamously banned ArticCynda? With the exception of one edit by Gizza, all other edits on that page were by 87.74.196.200, who seems to have edited the same range of articles AC did (i.e. minority regions of Russia and Tyrol). The IP also geolocates to Somerset, only a few kilometres southwest of Bristol, where AC's IPs usually geolocate to. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

They have also created nine other articles. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=4527100"