A sad stub abandoned for 1 week. I really think this should just be a speedy (no useful content or test), but I'd like other opinions. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done – speedily deleted. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have been written by AI. For example, see the ChatGPT-ish bulleted list at the end of the article. Information written by AI could make the article outright misleading and I would propose its deletion. Also, is that a potential copyright issue? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – a while back I was made aware of this article but I'd completely forgotten about it (also thanks to some Nigerian stubs); thanks for bringing it up! If anyone wants to make this a genuine article, it is much better to delete this article and start it from scratch. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that GZ overhauled it. Thanks for reviving it! --SHB (t | c | m) 11:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have overhauled the article, and invite @SHB2000, SelfieCity: to review the article now to reconsider their votes. Ground Zero (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SelfieCity: fixing broken ping :) --SHB (t | c | m) 11:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you're confident everything in it now is accurate, it's certainly sufficient for the article to be kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any text that you are concerned about? Ground Zero (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about that area to be able to spot anything problematic if there is anything, but like I said in other words above, I trust you, and anyway, it looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I have never been to Ambler, and I doubt that any of our contributirs have. I have only reconstructed the article from Wikipedia, and confirmed it with the barest of information available from the borough's website. I cannot be " confident everything in it now is accurate". If we adopt that standard, we should probably delete most of our articles. Ground Zero (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably confident, at least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Ground Zero: Thank you for improving the article. However, for me, two questions still stand. First, the section "Stay safe" still looks AI-written to me, which could just be deleted but past revisions would still be accessible. This leads to my second question, which is of a copyright violation and whether the article should've been deleted and rewritten to avoid the legal issues associated with an AI-written article on an open-source, Creative Commons-licensed platform. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The section "Do" also looks AI-written to me, with one of those bullet point lists so often a red flag for ChatGPT written content. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume that AI-copyvios are a minor risk: the situation is legally unclear, and most AIs dont copy text as such. We should avoid and delete or rewrite AI content for other reasons, but having an AI version left in the history is not worth worrying about. In a pinch, WMF is just required to delete those versions as they get a take-down notice, and only the user who actually made the edit, or their AI service provider, is legally responsible. –LPfi (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, that's good to know. In that case, I guess we can just delete that AI-written material and keep the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very useful information and should be incorporated into Wikivoyage:Copyleft. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can now speedily close this as keep now? SHB (t | c | m) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a real place & after GZ's revisions a real article. Pashley (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: speedily kept upon improvements and consensus. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've given User:Dongtingchun 10 days' notice on their user talk page that this non-Wikivoyage-style presumably copyvio stub would be nominated for deletion, so I duly nominate it. If I knew where it was copied from, I would have summarily deleted it, but I don't think there will be any keep votes for this. Of course a real article about this city would be welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete – this isn't even an article; I would more or less speedy delete this as it is entirely out of scope. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's for a city of over a million, just a totally wrong format and style for a Wikivoyage article and presumably copied and pasted from somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It has potential, but definitely not in the way it currently stands which is content that belongs on Wikipedia, not here; I think it's more or less better for anyone to just start the article from scratch than work with this where we don't even know if it's a copyvio or not. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, which is why I nominated it for deletion. I'm just saying the topic is definitely not out of scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is probably where our policy gets into a grey area, but I consider Wikipedia-like articles such as this one, even if it can be revived into an actual article, to be no different to some article with the title of a real place filled with spam or vandalism. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems like copyright violation, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is a copyright violation it should be treated as such, i.e. deleted. If not, I think some Wikipedia-like outlines (or stubs with some resemblance of one) could be seen as good-faith starts for a real Wikivoyage articles.

  In this case, the Wikipedia-like (to be) subsections of Understand resemble Taierzhuang, which has the template and tries towards travel information but is written in a too encyclopedic style. I assume they share a tradition, and that also this one is a good-faith try – possibly with wordings too close to the used sources, but not necessarily so. I think we should not speedy delete it, but try to communicate.

  –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't really matter if it was created in good faith or not, an out of scope article is still out of scope. Readers frankly don't care what goes on behind the scenes. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "try to communicate"? What do you think I did? If you think you somehow are more likely to get any notice by the person who seemingly abandoned this stub, try your magic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hanyangprofessor2:, is User:Dongtingchun one of your students? Can you have a word with them? STW932 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, thanks for your posting on their use talk. I got carried away with later comments here, by others. Still, I don't think we need to delete this speedily, unless we find concrete evidence of a copyright violation. –LPfi (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Accepted, but is this the first time you've made this kind of comment? I don't remember for sure, but my deletion nomination statement and the links in it really say it all. I clearly didn't call for summary deletion without a vote, and any idea that I haven't tried to communicate with the article-starter - well, you already said you were sorry about that, but try not to make this kind of statement again in a similar situation, and thanks! Best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @STW932 Yes, they are are. Sadly, they are one of the students who skipped most of the classes, skipped almost all deadlines including numerous ones where they should work on their draft(s) and ask me for feedback, and since it is the final weeks they seem to have remembered they need to turn in the assignments. Sigh. I'd ask for this to be moved to their userspace. I also want to preemptively apologize - some students like this will be making bad edits in the next week or two. Please speedy userfy anything that looks problematic, if possible. I will try my best to deal with this on my end, but there is only so much I can do when students ignore the syllabus and skip most classes then try to learn how to edit wiki in the last week or two :( Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yikes, that's a bummer. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing, Hanyangprofessor2: If this is copyright violation, it should be deleted, not moved anywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ikan Kekek Of course. But is it? I'd rather expect an AI generated stuff (output of going to Chat GPT or such and telling it 'write me an article about Foocation for Wikivoyage', sigh) rather than a copyvio (the times are changing...). Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI text, by its nature, can include copyright violation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ikan Kekek. Ground Zero (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be nice to have a proper article on Zhucheng given that city's importance to paleontology in China. There are multiple fossil sites and multiple fossil museums too, plus a few other attractions. I would try to fix this article but I'm very time-poor at this time of year. If the article is to be deleted, any useful content may moved to the Weifang article since Zhucheng is administratively part of Weifang. We may also redirect Zhucheng to Weifang. STW932 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that this is either copyvio or AI generated, so we should not preserve any of the text. Ground Zero (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ground Zero et al. The student is trying to improve it, finally having asked me for feedback. Let's see what happens over the next few days... Piotrus (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we will wait. Thanks for letting us know. Ground Zero (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 week later, it is still a sad stub with many style issues – what's everyone's take on it now, and how much more time do your students need, Piotrus? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's definitely not in great shape, and it looks like it has 4 Chinese-language categories that need to be deleted, but there's enough information in it now that it would probably be better to keep than delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get similar feelings – it's sad, it's stubby, it needs a lot of TLC, but there is a decent amount of usable information on that page. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last few comments. Pashley (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: kept pending the lack of consensus. --SHB (t | c | m) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous contibutor started this article on 26 Nov 2024, and has abandoned it. There is no Wikipedia article. I can't figure out where this is, but it may be related to Ko Bulon Leh. I think we should delete this. Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 00:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ko Bulon Leh, the main island of the archipelago about which the article covers. I have done some research and I'm pretty sure this is that island, which is also spelled as Ko Bulon Le or even Ko Bu Lon Le (the latter name being mentioned directly in the vfd'ed article). Ko Bu Lon is also mentioned in the article Satun, the province of which this island is a part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Further, I suggest we move the page Ko Bulon Leh to Ko Bulon Le, as this appears to be the standard spelling of the island's name. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected per SelfieCity's suggestion – I didn't rename it, though – I think that should be discussed on the article's talk page. --SHB (t | c | m) 07:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial parks aren't covered on Wikivoyage per WV:WIAA, queries on the talk page have gone unanswered for almost 2 weeks. --SHB (t | c | m) 02:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hohhot. No content needs to merged, I would argue, but the place has received some press coverage, so might as well send it to the city article of which it is a part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 04:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without a redirect. Unless we are planning on including any mention of this industrial park in the Hohhot article, it doesn't make sense to redirect the term. And if we did mention it, what would we say? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer your [Ikan's] option too – allowing redirects for industrial parks but not say major malls would only beg the question of where we draw the line for what gets a redirect and what doesn't. --SHB (t | c | m) 07:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't oppose redirects for malls in every case, if they are mentioned in articles. If someone erroneously created an article for a mall that was then covered as a listing somewhere, a redirect would be fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I think those are fine, but I also wouldn't go intentionally creating redirects for them either tbf. --SHB (t | c | m) 08:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If people see redirects from malls and industrial parks, they will create more. If content exists on a mall or industrial park within an article, a search will find it without a redirect. Ground Zero (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can deal with these when they come up, but if any content is taken from an article, it has to be redirected in order to keep the article's history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did create a redlink for Industry in San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles. It should probably be mentioned in the article of some adjacent location instead of having its own article – I suppose mentioning it in bold in the one-liner of that other location, or as a subbullet, would otherwise be ideal, but its name makes it very difficult to find by a search if it doesn't have a page of its own (a redirect or perhaps just a disambig). As I don't know the place, I did't do anything myself, other than changing a bullet just name-dropping it into a proper listing with redlink and one-liner based on Wikipedia. –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While User:CrunchLabs asserted on their talk page that "the industrial park has 4 areas that are open to tourists that I myself visited that should be Wikivoyage-worthy" two weeks ago, they have not explained what those 4 areas are. I have lost patience. Ground Zero (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am restoring your patience today. CrunchLabs (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep or turn it into a listing & redirect. It is a real place, apparently there are tours available, & we have someone who wants to write about it. I cannot see it being much of a draw for the typical tourist, but it might be of considerable interest to people in the dairy industry. Even if the article is actually pretty much useless, keeping it does no harm. Pashley (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your evidence that there is someone who will actually write anything travel-related about it? What in the stub article says "listing" to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was going to say what Ikan said, but Ikan beat me to it – what about it makes it that "keeping it does no harm"? --SHB (t | c | m) 21:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I just checked, and there is now some actual content in the stub, so I do think this can be merged and redirected to Hohhot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would note that Yili Health Valley is also a station on the local metro line. That's, to me, another argument in favor of a redirect rather than deletion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, yes, but in large-area prefectural-level cities like Hohhot, people usually think about the central city, not the surrounding area that is also part of the city proper. And since Yili Health Valley is part of Tumed Left Banner, which is a banner, not a district of the urban area, people will think it is not part of Hohhot. So they will not go to the Hohhot page. I say we keep it as it was. CrunchLabs (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we put the information in a listing & create a redirect from this article title to that listing, then anyone searching for "Yili .." or following a link to it will find the listing. Pashley (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it is a listing. It isn't a city, a park, or an attraction that's so overwhelmingly complex like Angkor Wat that it couldn't possibly function as a listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this could be a listing in Hohhot, but at the moment we are missing the actual visitor information. Is Yili Intelligent Manufacturing Experience Center open to visitors who turn up at the door (or are bookings required), when is it open, what does it cost, where is it (lat/long), are there tours in English etc? Such a large dairy factory could be of interest to visit, if really welcomes foreign visitors. The rest of the valley (ecological park etc) could probably be covered in a sentence in the Experience Centre listing. AlasdairW (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be listed if it merely welcomes domestic visitors, too, however frustrating that might be to some foreigner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: redirected by Ibaman. --SHB (t | c | m) 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]