Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2018

Rusirani Village
(added by Hobbitschuster on November 28)


 * Redirect. This is a stub article about a village. A good redirect target would be Sariska Reserve and National Park. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 14:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hobbitschuster, you know we don't delete articles about real places, so why is this nomination here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not an active village but a historic ruin, so a POI listing not a city/town. Have listed in Sariska Reserve and National Park. There is also a redirect Rusirani, so see no reason for a second longer version. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you sure no text should be merged to that listing (therefore requiring a redirect)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I add this, not the same wording so others can add if needed. I looked for information of the place, one entry on the web states a 5000 year old village but photos of the site suggest not quite that old, unless it is a not well publicized world wonder. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I still think we should make it a redirect to Sariska Reserve and National Park. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 15:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: no consensus to delete after 21 days of discussion, so redirected because that is the closest to consensus. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 15:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cooperating with Wikioverland
This is somewhat similar to the Citizendium one we had a little while ago. It has an Alexa Rank below 1 million, so I don't think we need a "Cooperating with..." page on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 15:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete even though it is travel-related, it's a moribund wiki with only 19 edits in the past month, mostly anonymous. Gizza ( roam ) 01:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Glancing at the talk page, it looks like this collaboration never had more than tepid support from the Wikivoyage community even in the best of times. If Wikioverland is as dead as Gizza says, then yes, let's delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made a few edits there and I think it's fairly good (see the recent changes of the website), but the quality of the English writing is generally not impressive. It's one of these where not much is happening. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Alexa ranking isn't a very useful measure for specialty interest wikis. Wikipedia has a low Alexa ranking because it's a general knowledge wiki, but it's expected for wikis on niche interests or hobbies for readers to go long stretches without reading, and for the reader base to be smaller. As for the contents, some of those recent changes actually have useful firsthand information which it would probably be difficult to find anywhere else. ARR8 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, keep in mind that a lot of the recent changes are mine. In fact, all of them so far are today. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. I checked when you first posted this, before those edits. Unless it was you who wrote about the Costa Rican border crossing? ARR8 (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I mean just the United States ones. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't know what to think here. Cooperating with a site that has low activity is not a priority, but I could well imagine some Wikivoyage users posting personal accounts there, if they wanted to. That seems to me at a glance to be the main difference between that site and this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still unsure on this one. Why is it important to delete this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: delete. While there were some who didn't support deletion, nobody clearly said that they wanted to keep the article, and a few supported deletion. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 13:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Cooperating with CouchSurfing and Cooperating with Wikevent
Not to overwhelm the Wikivoyage community, but I think these are two more that have long had nothing to do with Wikivoyage and could be removed. They're essentially no longer in existence. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 02:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep What harm is there in keeping them, since they are marked historical? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why is the question "what harm is there is keeping them" and not "what purpose does it serve to retain them"? As near as I can tell, Wikivoyage never actually collaborated with these projects anyway, so there's not even anything to archive. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, per André.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support deletion if it can be clearly demonstrated that there never was any cooperation and there is no prospect of cooperation in the future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ikan Kekek. If there actually was a cooperative event/effort that took place, it should be kept, but if nothing actually happened, delete (and it looks like this is the case). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like there was a proposal to cooperate rather than any actual cooperation between the sites. Gizza ( roam ) 00:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, oppose deleting pages marked historical. ARR8 (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: 6 votes to delete + 2 non-policy-based votes to keep = delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

4 Days in Walt Disney World on a Budget
This is a redirect to WDW nowadays, but had a brief history as an article. I don't believe there are any copyright reasons for retaining it, since when it was redirected, Texugo wrote "I don't see much of anything that needs merging". What does anyone else think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as there are no copyright issues, I'd agree to delete. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 16:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As we don't allow personal itineraries, because can be an infinite combination of them, I don't see why there needs to be "random" redirects like this. Delete. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 17:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If nothing was merged, there's no real need for this redirect, but I don't understand why there's a reason to delete this redirect, and I would oppose deletion unless Texugo stops by to affirm that nothing whatsoever was merged. My feeling is that spending any time discussing a redirect that indeed does no harm is per se a detriment to the site, because there's really no benefit to the discussion nor to the proposed deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. There may be incoming links to the now redirected article. Thus deleting any meaningful article that has existed for substantial time is a no-no, unless there are severe reasons for deletion. Former articles are usually also of some historic interest. And, if a redirect causes no harm, taking it to discussion here causes more harm than letting it alone.  This article was rather short-lived, one month, so I am not going to fight for it though. --LPfi (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just checked & the only link is from this page. I do not know if there were no others to begin with or if, as is the usual procedure, whoever did the redirect found & fixed any problematic links. Pashley (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume LPfi's point is incoming links from other websites, not from within Wikivoyage. Keep on that basis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced, but as User:Ikan Kekek says, "there's really no benefit to the discussion nor to the proposed deletion", so I'm not going to explain my reasons. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 01:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: tomorrow, there will have 14 days with this nomination. Since there's no consensus, I think we should leave a total of 21 days for this one per policy. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 13:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I'd rather spend less time discussing this, not more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's actually a good point. What do you think we should do, then? I personally don't mind if we keep or delete, and I doubt anyone else who's voted really cares &mdash; the discussion is not very important because it's a redirect, not an article. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 17:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and move on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: kept. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 11:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

All the redirects to "Wikivoyage:Archive of Wikitravel (not Wikivoyage) milestones"
This is a weird case. There are loads of pages with a title of the format "Wikivoyage:{date month year}" (e.g. 10 April 2007) which redirect to Archive of Wikitravel (not Wikivoyage) milestones. Are these still needed? What are they for? Is there anyone still around from the early days of Wikitravel other than Evan who remembers? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, doesn't seem relevant anymore. Anyone who wants to see these can probably go to the Wikitravel website. (I assume it's there.) --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 16:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not really the point. Wikitravel's (pre 2013) history is our history too, and I favour keeping the archive of milestones page. My question is what to do with the redirects, which with respect is not something you can answer. I'd like to hear from someone who was there at the time, to make sure we wouldn't inadvertently delete something important if we deleted them all.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pashley is the only active contributor who was around in 2007 (as an admin). Well, I was too but much less so in English. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 17:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, it's the redirects. I'll check. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 17:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not an admin at the time but I remember that these were included in bigger pages and someone just decided to redirect them instead. I think it's unfortunate actually. E.g. see this history milestone: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:10_April_2007&oldid=1763126 It is no longer documented at the redirect's target, Archive of Wikitravel (not Wikivoyage) milestones. (So keep and probably un-redirect or be better about transcluding.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

* Yes, delete. A bunch of redirects that are a waste of space, time, and energy on the wiki. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 17:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleting the redirects probably wastes more resources on the server than keeping them, and I do not understand how they waste time and energy. I suppose it is up to us to keep the history, as the other site will not be around too long. --LPfi (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The nomination is a little confusing, but I come down where Justin is, which is oppose. Leave these redirects alone and make sure these historical milestones are visible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I looked at two of these pages and they are linked from user talk pages, and therefore should be kept for completeness. there are some like 13 October 2004 which are not linked, but really I doubt it is worth the effort to sort through them all. AlasdairW (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LPfi's argument that it wastes resources, along with the general reasoning here, convinces me that it would be wiser to keep. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 02:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: kept. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 11:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)