This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LPfi (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 16 February 2023 (→Pidgin phrasebook: moved to Nigerian Pidgin phrasebook).

Latest comment: 2 years ago by LPfi in topic January 2023


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:

December 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago45 comments6 people in discussion

Articles created by Dnshitobu (talk · contribs)

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:

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
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
I think there's consensus (albeit indirectly) to delete all the articles that have not been improved. I'd wait another day before taking action, though, especially because there would be a COI if I deleted the unimproved articles without waiting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
As the creator of thes articles appears to be working on them, I am willing to wait another couple of weeks. The competition that these were crated before ends on 31/1/23, so deleting any time next month should avoid points be awarded for empty articles. AlasdairW (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'll wait till 22/12/30 as per #Deleting, or not, but am willing to wait longer if needed. The only think that I feel strongly about is that these articles don't count towards the contest. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Great. Let's keep this thread open and give Dnshitobu time to do more work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Dnshitobu has made some progress already, as I've noted in the list above. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think we should remove the VfD tags from the articles that have been improved, and cross them off this list. Ground Zero (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done. Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and this could also be done with some of the proposed mergers. AlasdairW (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't that be done after they are merged? Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Abron phrasebook and Jiru phrasebook have been deleted as they contained no phrases. Abon was believed to have had 1,000 native speakers in 1973, and Jiru had 3,400 in 2000. Ground Zero (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

January 2023

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Pidgin is a type of language and not a specific language. JsfasdF252 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Redirect to Tok Pisin phrasebook Pashley (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
If so, move it (without a redirect) to "Nigerian pidgin phrasebook" or "West African pidgin phrasebook". I prefer the latter since the WP article says related dialects are spoken outside Nigeria. Then add a link in Pidgin. Pashley (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is enough content to be certain it is not referring to Tok Pisin. We should preserve the content by not deleting. However, we definitely do not want "Pidgin phrasebook" as a title since there is no one Pidgin language & we already have a Pidgin article.
Move, without redirect. Pashley (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, move. But where? I wouldn't like "West African pidgin phrasebook", as I am pretty sure this pidgin isn't understood in say Senegal. It seems there are quite big variations already in Nigeria, but those may be workable. It seems to me that "Nigerian pidgin phrasebook" is good enough. Some dialects outside Nigeria can be covered also under that title, and if somebody would be offended by their dialect being called so, we can leave it to another phrasebook to be created if somebody cares enough. –LPfi (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is something the article's creator really should have made clear, but it seems evident from their other contributions that is probably referring to Nigerian Pidgin. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems there is consensus on moving the article, and Nigerian Pidgin phrasebook seems to be appropriate. Will be moved without redirect. –LPfi (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

February 2023

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Abandoned stub since Jan 18. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unnecessary. See the article's talk page. Pashley (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have started Digital nomad so this can now be redirected there. I do not think there is anything worth merging, but redirect rather than delete to preserve the talk page. Pashley (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we ever delete talk pages of delete articles, unless the talk pages are spam, vandalism or the like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=4620085"