Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2020

Thomas Land

 * Delete, unless User:SteaminThomasTheTrain32 decides during the course of this vote for deletion to make this into a non-touty listing in the appropriate destination article. Right now, it certainly doesn't pass the What is an article test, and even if it were a listing, it is a promotional one that is quite strongly at variance with Manual of style. So far, efforts to solicit cooperation at User talk:SteaminThomasTheTrain32 have produced only weird pushback, and another reason I'm not hopeful is this absurd warningbox that was in the "article" in question until I just deleted it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to userspace or Delete. Only possibility would be as a travel topic as the attractions are in different locations, but not a particularly compelling topic. Prefer your suggestion on the authors talk page to move it their user space. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge: The two places that have Thomas Lands (Carver Massachusetts and Tamworth (England)) already list the parks. I don't think there's much content worth merging from the Thomas Land page, but if there is, then those articles are the proper place to merge to. The Thomas Land page can then be turned into a disambig.
 * Travel topic: Alternatively, if User:SteaminThomasTheTrain32 has (a lot) more to write about Thomas that is relevant to a travel guide, then the theme parks and the various Days Out With Thomas sites could possibly be spun into a travel topic, which could maybe also include real locations on the Isle of Man that inspired places on the Island of Sodor.
 * I would love to be proven wrong when I say that I doubt the user's seriousness.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * For a small theme park (as I said on the user's talk page, this park has just 18 rides per WP), the right place for the information is the closest city article. But there doesn't seem to be any useful information in this article, just a list of rides and an overload of photos (if I understand correctly this one isn't even from the park in the UK but from Japan) so I say delete. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge as necessary and delete. Also: ThunderingTyphoons! and Ikan Kekek, remember that discussion about a proposed CIR policy when the two of you said we didn't need to come up with a whole new policy just to deal with one problem user, and I said "I'm pretty sure I remember some past occasions unrelated to [that user] where I've wished CIR was a Wikivoyage policy, so I'll be keeping my eye out for future cases to bolster the argument in favor of this policy?" Well, this user is another would-be CIR case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Duly warned :-) 🚂 --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think existing policies and guidelines are quite sufficient to deal with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm not trying to go against the crowd here, as in the long term, it should probably be deleted. However, considering the editor's apparent unwillingness to move this to draftspace, I think we might as well wait a little while to see what this user adds, and then we can consider merging or moving the content. We could still get something useful out of what he plans to add. No harm can be done, as few people are likely to find this Thomas the Tank Engine article anyway. (As long as it's not linked from any other page.) If we act like we're going along with this user's game for a couple of weeks, we might actually have better results than simply deleting/redirecting/merging the article now. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting idea that IMO is worth considering. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't see any content in the article as it currently is that is worth salvaging and merging into the respective destinations. It could be made into a disambiguation or travel topic page later on but for now it is just spam and should be deleted. Gizza ( roam ) 22:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to userspace (or delete) Thomas Land is part of Drayton Manor Theme Park which has a listing in Tamworth (England). A part of a theme park could never be an article, and there is no useful information in the article. However the author may be a younger contributer so we should proceed with caution, and I am happy to wait a month or so before taking action. AlasdairW (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not inclined to cross out my delete vote, but I'll just say that I'm happy to go along with a move to that individual's user page, if they ever express any interest in that (otherwise, not), and I'm willing to let the "article" stay up for more than the VfD period if that's the consensus (although I think that just delays the inevitable). I'm a little doubtful a redirect to a disambig page is a good solution, but I'd be willing to hear that out, too, if there's a consensus for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely if there is to be no Thomas Land article, a disambiguation between the three (at least) Thomas Land parks pointing to the correct listings in city articles is the default? Or if not, when did we start deleting real places? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this a real "place" or just a promotional listing disguised as an article? Like I said, I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is, but I'm a little skeptical of redirecting an "article" that never should have been started. Just convince me; that's all. Exactly how many entries would there be in a disambig page? Edited: Above, there's a reference to two places. Do two places require a disambig? Is one clearly bigger than the other, such that we could use a "See also" link or some such? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Do we have disambiguation pages for chains? I think searching on the name is efficient enough and what readers will expect. For the merge and delete suggestions: we have to keep attribution (the licence is cc-by-sa). I'd be hesitant to advise adding content worth merging to an article going to be deleted. Better add that content to the destinations directly. Having this as a user page would be OK, though, especially if the user thinks they might be able to make it a valid travel topic. I am sceptical, but I don't know the park.


 * The images seem to be uncategorised on Commons. Categorisation, adding descriptions and maybe creating a gallery at Commons is probably easier before the page is deleted, so that could be a way for the user (or somebody else) to salvage their work.


 * --LPfi (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Legoland, SeaWorld.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Drayton Manor is the UK location.  And if you wanted to list anything related to Thomas in the UK, it would be a long list of things covered in Tourist Trains, Railway history etc...  Most of the locations in the original book series have real world equivalents (at least in terms of operational practice..).  If someone wanted to do a proper 'Pilgrim's Tour' of Sodor for April this year, I wouldn't object. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Question: Almost 2 months have passed. It's unclear to me whether there's a consensus on what to do with this stub. Are we deleting it, redirecting it somewhere or creating a disambig page, or are we going to involuntarily move it to the user page of an apparent jokester who's not likely to return and let it languish there out of sight, out of mind? If we can't establish a consensus, an admin will have to make a decision and act accordingly, as it's wrong to leave outstanding Vfd discussions up so long for no good reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't weigh in before, but there's nothing on the page that warrants merging. It's just ride/attraction names. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as no-one has come forward to rescue this. Ground Zero (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So what about the fact that two of these attractions are already listed? Why can't the content of Thomas Land be deleted with a disambiguation to the two relevant articles be put in its place? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want to do that? That's OK with me, but what will be in it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose someone may search on Thomas Land, so a disambiguation page makes sense. Ground Zero (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to do that; it's no effort. But I wouldn't do it while this vfd discussion is live. All it would have was a pointer towards the two articles where Thomas Land parks are currently listed.


 * I think we all agree that there's nothing on the Thomas Land page worth saving, and the (probably quite young) person who created it doesn't seem to be coming back.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm ready to close this nomination in favor of the disambiguation page. Any objections? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Result - disambiguated.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)