Talk:Manendragarh

Compare text at https://www.indianholiday.com, in particular, https://www.indianholiday.com/tourist-attraction/koriya/waterfalls-in-koriya/amrit-dhara-waterfall.html. Who copied from where? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the diff where it was added to the Wikipedia article, I'd guess it was copied to Wikipedia, not from it. /Julle (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, there would be a copyright violation problem that would require the article to be deleted and recreated, or at least it would require the text to be thoroughly overhauled to avoid the copyright violation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously. (: I've removed it now. Didn't think to check before I copied it here from Wikipedia, I just moved it when I found something that belonged here and not in the encyclopedia. /Julle (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Julle. This article is currently under discussion at Votes for deletion. It's been proposed that we should delete the article so that the copyright violation is expunged from its history, and I've suggested then re-creating it. I think there should be a way to create a listing for the waterfall with attribution as based on something, but without direct quoting or very close paraphrasing. To make things easier, this is the lede: "Manendragarh is a town of the Koriya district that is a part of the state of Chhattisgarh, India. It has 33,000 inhabitants." I don't think there's any reason for this talk page to be deleted, but I'll inquire at Vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong opinion myself – I know nothing about Manendragarh, I just stumbled across something on Wikipedia which I thought belonged here rather than there – though it would seem to me like the easiest solution would be to just let an admin delete the relevant versions of the article's history, which would have basically the same effect as deleting and recreating it. /Julle (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Vfd discussion
This was created here as an (unintentional) copyright violation and now contains no content besides the lede. What good does keeping yet another stubby outline around do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd support deleting and recreating it. The copyright violation about attractions (a waterfall IIRC) is unacceptable, but surely, a listing could be created without directly quoting from somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, when we delete the article, can we keep the talk page? It refers to but doesn't contain copyright violation, and I just copied the lede there to facilitate restoring it when we re-create the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * But the article will likely remain without content for a while, right? Is that something we want to encourage? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to. By the way, is this a possible solution? Do admins have the authority to remove the initial creation of an article from its history? I'm thinking that would look too strange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and recreate if you feel it's necessary, but I'd find it hard to believe that a city of 30,000 would have absolutely nothing worthwhile to See or Do and thus not merit an article per wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * But why not delete it and wait until it is "organically" recreated? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you would mean by that, other than having no article for some indeterminate period of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well yes. It would be not an article until someone who is from there and stumbles upon our site or has recently been there or otherwise actually knows a thing about the place creates an article. This empty stub is worse than nothing, as it implies there being something where there's nothing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder—is it possible that having an empty outline encourages contributions more than having no article at all? Rock Hill had no article at all for years until I created it as a pretty barebones outline this February. Within four months, a new editor came along and expanded it into a really useful article with lots of content. The same person has added to lots of other articles about nearby cities as well. I don't know, maybe that editor would have created the Rock Hill article anyway even if I hadn't—but maybe the existence of the outline begging for information encouraged them to start contributing to Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We could always ask. But no, I wouldn't support merely deleting this article and not recreating it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Having an empty outline does not encourage contributions any more than having no article at all – it just deceptively displays a blue link, to give the false impression we already have the destination when we do not. If a page was created as a result of user error, much as if it were created as spam or vandalism, there should be no requirement that it be kept. It can be recreated once we have original content for this destination. K7L (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can claim that about empty outlines without evidence. It's just as likely that it does encourage contributions, as it's easier for a newbie to add a single listing to an existing article than to figure out how to create one from scratch. Powers (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, admins can hide the first version as well. I can't give you an example here since I'm not an admin on English Wiktionary, but see the history for this test page. Anyway, I suggest we don't spend too much time debating which solution to take to get rid of it (deletion and recreation or hiding), they're probably equally good. (: /Julle (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Policy is not to delete articles about real places, so this should either be redirected or kept. There has been a lot of previous discussion of what to do with almost empty articles; see Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy. Pashley (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pashley, what's the policy on articles that were started with plagiarism that has since been deleted but is still in the edit history? That's the issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Any of delete & recreate, or keep & hide the copyvio in history, or redirect appropriately would be fine with me & I think in accordance with policy. Just deleting would not be either. Ignoring the problem & just leaving it as it is also seems tolerable to me, but since there are better choices we might as well pick one of them. Pashley (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As the one who unwittingly moved the copyvio from Wikipedia and over here I'd prefer to remove it from the history of the article one way or another, if that counts for something. (: /Julle (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and recreate as a redirect seems to be the best option. Ground Zero (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to what, and why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Bilaspur as the nearest major city, or just to the state article, Chhattisgarh. Ground Zero (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't see why we'd want to redirect to the state article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you think it should be redirected? Let's settle this constructively so that the discussion doesn't drag on for another three weeks. We have better things to do than fuss over this one useless article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to redirect, the redirect term should be the nearest place for which there is an article, so if that's Bilaspur, redirect (again, if there's a consensus) to Bilaspur. A redirect to the article for the state seems useless to me; you don't agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and recreate This accomplishes the purpose of getting the violation out of the history. I don't see where the redirect suggestion comes from and that seems a better discussion outside of the copyright issue for people who know the city. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: Deleted and redirected to Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)