Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]
Archiving[edit]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:
|
March 2024[edit]
Billionaires' Social Calendar[edit]
This article was nominated for deletion in Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2023, but did not achieve consensus to delete. One of the reasons given was that it has been created in November 2022, and should be given a year to be developed. A year has passed, and it remains a random and arbitrary list of events, seemingly based on a single YouTube video. It is not an organized itinerary, or really a thing. It's just a made-up phrase used by a YouTuber. Ground Zero (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Ground Zero (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this could've been a valid travel topic, but as it is, it's just a list of events without description. That said, I've never seen these locations assembled and addressed as a topic before. I don't remember taking part in the previous discussion, but I think I would've voted to delete then, as well. I certainly agree now that it should be deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and my observation from last year that this was a personal itinerary. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per last year. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 18:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. A poor idea for an article with almost no useful content. It doesn't have useful information about the events. I looked at the three January events and the linked city articles, and there was not even the beginning of information about the event. I was expecting both details of the event and some profile information on the type of billionaire likely to attend that event. I am not convinced that the authors have attended any of these events and done any billionaire spotting, otherwise there would be specific tips for some of the events. AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Hodge-podge of random well known, notoriously expensive stuff. I dont think that compilating them into one page is very helpfull. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Sgroey (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Unused media[edit]
Putting these together, but please separate if you think these deserve different discussions:
- File:Karachi guide book banner.png (plain text as a PNG rather than SVG or just text and CSS)
- File:Bo Kaap2.JPG (unused media that cannot be ported to c:)
- File:Astana.jpg (unused media that cannot be ported to c:)
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- The first one is labelled "temporary" by its creator, Saqib, who probably should have been pinged.
- The two others cannot, according to their description, be uploaded to Commons because of Freedom of Panorama issues (images of non-free architecture). Our policy doesn't allow storing such images unless they are in use. Are these essential for some article?
- For Bo Kaap, there is a process on changing the South African copyright law, which may make it legal. If I understand correctly, it is waiting for a presidential signature, but at the last round it was sent back to Parliament, so nothing is certain yet. Anyway, we might want to wait a few months and check for developments before deleting (it could then be moved to Commons). One could also argue for de minimis, threshold of originality or something, depending on the role of the architect(s) and legal tradition.
- –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Uploaded to Commons, speedy denied[edit]
- File:Portland DOTM Banner 1.jpg, also unused.
- File:My House FTT Banner.jpg, also unused.
- File:Your House banner The Lighthouse on Queens Wharf Auckland.JPG, also unused.
- File:YourHouseBanner3.jpg, also unused.
Listed here as it has somewhat distinct circumstances. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as DOTM banners are hosted locally. This is a rare circumstance where it is appropriate to upload such a file locally. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do we have some reason to think these media which are derived from photos on c: will be deleted there? And then that these files which are currently unused will also somehow be needed here after deletion? And that we can't just use the undelete request at c: and get a local copy if somehow needed? Deleting redundant files at c: is one of the speedy deletion criteria and it seems that would doubly apply for unused media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, but that would require a change in DOTM practice since banners are almost always uploaded locally. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do we have some reason to think these media which are derived from photos on c: will be deleted there? And then that these files which are currently unused will also somehow be needed here after deletion? And that we can't just use the undelete request at c: and get a local copy if somehow needed? Deleting redundant files at c: is one of the speedy deletion criteria and it seems that would doubly apply for unused media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Our policy exists because banners for past DotMs were repeatedly deleted without notice, leaving them blank in our archives. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- What policy and like I wrote above would the undeletion policy not work for some reason? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:Image policy#Local media. The undeletion procedure is a nuisance: the deletion itself may pass without notice and the image is then missing until somebody brings it up in the Pub or gets in touch with an admin at Commons, who may need some convincing before they undelete the image, and then you need to do the download and upload and adjust descriptions.
- The Commons' policies should not allow the deletion in the first place, unless there are copyright problems, and even then we should be notified, but mistakes happen, seemingly too often. The Commons admins have a severe backlog.
- Of course, undeleting them here is easier, if they are uploaded here in the first place.
- –LPfi (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, but these are unused media. Has this been a problem where something that wasn't even used here got deleted on c: and it couldn't be undeleted and uploaded locally? I just don't even see the point. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- If something that is unused gets deleted, it will probably never be found for an undeletion request. So if we want them undeleted at some point, then they should never get deleted. That they are unused is odd. Perhaps SelfieCity knows why they aren't in the archives. But even if the page versions where they were used got archived to /dev/null, it is nice to have them show in versions in the page history. Perhaps that's not important enough though, that we cannot trust Commons to keep them. –LPfi (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is the first a duplicate of File:PortlandBanner1.jpg? All of them early versions? –LPfi (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- If something that is unused gets deleted, it will probably never be found for an undeletion request. So if we want them undeleted at some point, then they should never get deleted. That they are unused is odd. Perhaps SelfieCity knows why they aren't in the archives. But even if the page versions where they were used got archived to /dev/null, it is nice to have them show in versions in the page history. Perhaps that's not important enough though, that we cannot trust Commons to keep them. –LPfi (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, but these are unused media. Has this been a problem where something that wasn't even used here got deleted on c: and it couldn't be undeleted and uploaded locally? I just don't even see the point. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- What policy and like I wrote above would the undeletion policy not work for some reason? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Our policy exists because banners for past DotMs were repeatedly deleted without notice, leaving them blank in our archives. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The three house banners are referenced from discussions on Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles/Your house. I don't think we should consider them completely unused just because the page links to the images rather than displaying them. YourHouseBanner3 was used on the main page on 1 April 2020. AlasdairW (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)