Seems like obvious copyvio from Wikipedia, although I'm not immediately finding it at en.wikipedia. But it's certainly a stub that's in a totally non-Wikivoyage style and has text copied from somewhere, without any acknowledgement. I attempted to engage the article-starter on User talk:OrkanWładysław, but there has as yet been no response. I would have summarily deleted this article without a nomination if I had found the source of the text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the source of this either. However it is a dump of text that is likely to have been machine translated from a document that is not available online. Unless someone wants to take a chainsaw to it and turn it into a Wikivoyage article, it think we should delete it to be on the safe side of our copyvio policy. Ground Zero (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Given the nature of it, it's better to nuke it and start this article afresh if someone is willing to make this a proper viable travel article. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an itinerary. No edits for more than a year. Badly formatted. No information that isn't already in the articles for the three cities listed. The article's creator added a bunch of text that was possibly copyvio from some commercial enterprise, and hasn't contributed to Wikivoyage in the last year. Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Salerno, Paestum and Amalfi#Copy of Votes for deletion thread, closed a year ago, with nobody satisfied with the article as such, but with differing opinions on how to proceed. After closure, the article was cut down to what belongs in an itinerary article, but nobody has taken an interest in developing it and there is little hope the original author will. The page should probably be deleted as a useless personal itinerary, unless content was copied to other articles, in which case it should be redirected to the region. –LPfi (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the 1-year rule, or at most, merge to Salerno#Go next as a suggestion of 2 places to visit from there, but that doesn't seem necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the histories of the Salerno, Paestum and Amalfi articles, and so far, no content has been merged from this embryonic itinerary article to any of those articles, so at this point, it wouldn't be necessary to keep the title as a redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete. LPfi (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the 1-year rule. Any chance this might've been created by a Lucky04 sockpuppet? It very much reads like it. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong region of Italy and more combative, too, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, yeah, true – I don't remember Luchy working on southern Italy from memory. @A09:, your thoughts on whether this is a Luchy sock or not? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a match from my perspective. Wrong region, no immediate abuse of machine translations, and different prose style. I’m indifferent to whether delete this article or not. A09|(talk) 06:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sweet, good to know. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two barebone outline articles created by El-hussain14 (talk · contribs) when they seemingly went on an article-creation spree on Nov 17, 2024 – almost a month has passed since and they have seemingly left Wikivoyage (but apparently active on hawiki + incubator – which really only goes to show that they don't have much regard for Wikivoyage). The state of the article really just makes it easier to nuke + start afresh if someone wants to make it into an actual viable article. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see the need to discuss deleting articles that qualify as article creation vandalism. The article creator put no effort into creating the articles. We should not take up contributors' time discussing deletion. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change my mind on this. Since they are real places, they should just be redirected to the region article without discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair; I do prefer deletion since it is much easier to start an article from a redlink than an already existing redirect were someone new to create this article, but I'm also completely happy with a speedy redirect – or really, anything that isn't the status quo – which is leaving these articles in its sad state of despair. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and redirect if you like, but are these places going to be mentioned at the redirected article? If not, deletion would be better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These have nothing worth saving. If they should have articles, then it is better to create city bullets with redlinks in the region article, with one-liners based on Wikipedia. That would tell more than what's now in the articles, and the articles are significantly easier to create from the redlinks than from redirects. –LPfi (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also probably don't want articles on local government areas, but on the corresponding towns or whatever. Let somebody who will work on the region (or on the actual destinations) decide what to have articles about. –LPfi (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are valid arguments for deletion. I was only proposing redirecting as a faster route to resolving this. Ground Zero (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to delete. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]