Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2016

Indian Airlines
Formerly a pointless redirect, I propose nuking due to violation of our policy not to create articles on companies Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hobbitschuster reasoning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * note No company of this name currently exists any more, so even if it were not a violation of policy, it would be pointless to redirect this anwywhere... Lest we want to have articles on PanAm or something like that next. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely this can just be deleted without a debate? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The content was merged into Discount airlines in Asia, which eventually was merged into Air travel on a budget, so normally we should keep it. But I don't think that any of the original text remains, so it is not required for attribution, and can be deleted. AlasdairW (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Outcome: - Delete --Traveler100 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg
Non-free image that's not currently in use. Our Non-free content policy requires us to delete it. File:Baltimore pennstation banner EDITED.jpg is technically not non-free, but it should probably also be deleted. Powers (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This banner was used on Baltimore/Midtown which made it valid to keep on the last two times that we discussed it here. However it was replaced with a banner from commons last September (showing a similar view, but with statue slightly less prominent), meaning that it now not used and so there is no use which justifies keeping it. The edited banner could be moved to commons if the description made the edit details clear. AlasdairW (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Pashley (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Deleted -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Danube
We don't have articles on rivers. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, but we do have itineraries like Along the Yangtze River and another half dozen Along... titles. Would this make sense rewritten to one of those? Pashley (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Expand. In its current state it is a debatable article but the Danube is such a tourist attraction I think it should stay as an Extra Region and needs some work put into it. Itinerary is a possibility but the whole length is not often done with the exception of a few cruise ships and the most fit of cyclists. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (that is, don't delete), as per Traveler100's and Pashley's points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Rivers don't make good extra-hierarchical regions because they don't have well defined areas. (Watersheds could be used, but usually they don't make for very good travel groupings.) It could be valid as an itinerary (vis Erie Canal), but Traveler100 points out a significant barrier. Powers (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - an itinerary might make sense, but this as a "region" covers 1/3 of Europe. It doubles a number of smaller Danube-centred regions along its route and does not serve a purpose. Instructions on how one can travel down the entire course of the Danube would make sense as an itinerary, but not as a regular guide. This is not Wikipedia, we should not have an article for EVERY phrase one may look for. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, if not as an extraregion then as an itinerary. It is a major tourist attraction and has some of the most beautiful and historic cities in the world along it. Often the focal point of peoples holidays either with car, hiking, cycling, private boat or cruise ship. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Danube is massive. It is not a "tourist attraction", trying to "see the Danube" is almost impossible unless one has at least a fortnight. Therefore, an itinerary for hardcore Danube enthusiast might be interesting - not only for following entirely, but to be used in parts, an containing mostly information on moving along the Danube that would otherwise be a bit too much to keep in successive destination articles. But it is not a region in any sense and is impossible to describe the way we describe regions, unless we immediately start splitting it into smaller regions, which in turn makes it a superfluous region that would rather better be a disambig page.
 * In short, if you want to know where Danube flows and what lies along it, visit Wikipedia. If you have advice on travelling along the Danube, create an itinerary. If you want to create yet another alternative layer of regions to cover the same things prompting duplication of content and potential splitting of the thin editorial effort, as well as making maintenance an issue (yet another article to update with every bit of relevant info, decide on splitting info between articles and making sure articles do not contradict, which is often an end result of users deciding to each tend to their own preferred allotments) - please don't. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A fortnight is not a long time for a trip and not for a holiday. Attraction as in a see listing no, but try not to think WIkivoyage policies and think someone thinking about visiting part of the Danube. It is a real challenge to find your way round the Wikivoage articles without this page. Are you seriously proposing jumping back a forward between WIkipedia and Wikivoage? Also not talking about alternative regions covering the same topics as existing, This is the reason for Extraregions, to collect articles together on a subject a visitor to the site may asked about but then guide them thought the structure of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete . If I'm reading the previous comments correctly, the "keep" votes are being made under the argument that the current article could be reworked into an itinerary.  If that's the case, delete the existing article since it isn't an itinerary article now.  Nothing is stopping someone from creating an itinerary in the future, but the policy on itineraries is that they need to either be about a recognized route or see a minimum amount of development, and this article currently meets neither of those criteria.. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been reworked into an extraregion, so I see no harm in keeping it. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To also consider for deletion: Hudson Valley; Amazonia; Delaware Valley; Loire Valley. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with Hudson Valley? It's a disambiguation-style extra-hierarchical region. Valleys are often used as travel regions.  Powers (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing, just another example of a river extraregion, which I think is valid but other not. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not a river-based extra-hierarchical region. The valley is a related but separate geographic feature and a well-known travel region. Powers (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to "Along the Danube" (leaving a redirect) and tag it as an outline itinerary. The existing article is already more like an itinerary than a region, so make it one. Pashley (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would work fine as an itinerary; travel topic has also been suggested. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] It's very disturbing how many of you want to just throw away something of use to travellers. Are we to inflexibly follow a narrow interpretation of policy just because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest the current article seems to be a failed experiment and precisely not of use to anybody. And I doubt many people would be served by articles on rivers just for the sake of it. If there are well established routes like the Elbe Radweg, we are talking about something else, but I fear that we will soon be overwhelmed by hard to maintain stubs whose only reason for existence is the fact that some water flows downhill Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It also worries me this need to delete articles or text from articles just because it is not perfect. Seem to me to be against the spirit of a Wiki site. There are a lot of articles with room for improvement, the point if wiki is to improve on other peoples work not endless criticism and discussion. We should all be spending more time enhancing articles not removing information. And remember you cannot always predict how someone will come across this site or want to use it. It is important to have landing pages that then guide the travelling into the real useful pages of Wikivoyage. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ikan here. I see no reason to even consider deletion; the questions are how to make what we have more useful and what needs to be added. Pashley (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to vote on this one. I would comment that we will continue to see friction based on people's own belief about what 'Wiki Spirit' and Ttcf really mean. I would ask the 'keepers' to make some compromise here, for example by agreeing that all the generic 'lists' can be removed and only genuinely useful content should remain. This would allow someone to rebuild this a more helpful way. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're suggesting as a compromise. No-one who opposes deletion is arguing that the article shouldn't be improved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What here is useful to travelers? The list of countries? The only thing I see, aside from what can be found in any general reference tome, is the link to our The Danube Cycleway article. There's basically nothing else on the page. Powers (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, this is properly an itinerary or travel topic. The fact that it's not a well-developed article is a reason to develop it, not delete it, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Please also look at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly could be improved, but as it stands it still provides some useful info to a potential visitor to Europe. Consider somebody at the first step of planning a visit to Europe, who has been told by a friend to "take a cruise on the Danube". From this article they can get to Bratislava (and other articles). AlasdairW (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this should be kept and improved. I can imagine several ways to improve it, but for a certain (older) demographic, this is a pretty popular "destination".  There's quite a lot to say about just the river cruise aspect, such as why fares are cheaper in the Spring (higher risk of flooding = higher risk of cancellation).  The question of whether to shoehorn this into Artificial Page Type X or Artificial Page Type Y seems far less important to me than providing relevant, useful, accurate information to the traveler.  Keep the page now; classify it some other year, whenever there's nothing important to do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not call it "shoehorning" into an "artificial page type" as much as the reason why this article has not been updated much prior to this vfd. Besides not being linked to from very many places, anybody stumbling over it will most likely be confused as to what this article is supposed to be and do. Other articles, that are clearly travel topics, destination guides or itineraries are much easier to update than this strange otherworld limbo. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes were approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep".  Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 06:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced by the keep argument. In its current state the article is ironically less travel relevant than the WP article on the same subject. While there might be a SEO argument (which I doubt, given the duplicate penalty), it is doubtful we would gain more than one hit by a visitor who searches for that as this article is unlikely to create any form of retention. Other articles are much better in that regard. If we want to keep this article and others, we should change our bodies of water policy as we know de facto do have articles that are about bodies of water. Maybe we even have to create a new "River" article template. I don't like that idea, but if it is well executed (and does not saddle us with yet more work on a marginal part of our guides) it might provide some value after all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to another admin to decide how to resolve this nomination, but to my reading of the discussion the "delete" votes still aren't citing policy to justify deletion, while the argument for keeping the article is that it's a valid extraregion. Since deletion should only be done in accordance with the existing deletion policy ("Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy") it still seems to me that the correct resolution in this case is to keep the article. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many useful information about the river. Not only the cycle path. Danube river cruising is very popular. Usefull hints about this topic could even fill up an own article. Improve it as a travel topic. -- DerFussi 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Rhine
There seem to have been inconclusive debates about this article a decade ago. I say delete it as a violation of policy Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I we should consider the policy based on the fact we now have ExtraRegions. The Rhine is a major focal point for tourists visiting Europe. Would to me be a big gap in a travel guide. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an extraregion, and a pretty clearly defined one. It could be expanded into an itinerary or left as an extraregion, with more information added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment What is the violation of policy? It is tagged as an extraregion, so there doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping it. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - If we keep this article, we have to seriously ask ourselves the question: Do we want an article about every river in existence? And if not, how and where are we going to draw the line? I see nothing that makes the Rhine "so special" that could not similarly be said about dozens of other rivers, including the Mississippi River, the Huangho or even the Volga Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say that any long, important river that is itself an attraction, currently has plenty of river traffic, and is lined with appealing places to visit probably would merit an article, either an itinerary with links or some kind of region or extra-region article. That definitely includes Mississippi River and Yangtze River; I'm not sure about Yellow River (Huang He) or Volga. By the way, do you notice that there are Along the Yangtze River and Along the Yellow River itinerary articles, though the Yangtze one is better developed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Judging by that, we need to have a serious debate on whether to update our current bodies of water policy. While I fully agree that some of those articles can be worthwhile if done right (after all, Ruta del Tránsito is basically "along the Rio San Juan" with a bit of Lake Nicaragua and Pacific Nicaragua thrown in), there does exist the potential for half empty articles on every. river. in. existence. If we say yes to Rhine and Danube, what about the Oder? It runs along a major international border, after all. What about the Neiße? Görlitz lies along it. And what about canals? Rhein and Donau are linked, after all. I mean yes, itineraries could cover the more well known of those, but just having articles on rivers because rivers exist strikes me as... silly, in absence of a better term. It's not like we have (more than) enough outline articles of certain types already. And I think we should have a debate on our bodies of water policy, which has become rather diluted, so to speak. Sorry for the pun. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * China also has Along the Grand Canal, quite undeveloped. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the test for bodies of water, as for any other subject, should be whether there is enough content, or at least potential content, for there to be useful articles about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Bodies of water needs updating. The key point is "We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water" [emphasis added] with the following caveat: "Some regions or for that matter towns are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about water, they are about the inhabited area on and around the water, with all the sorts of things that make an destination article-worthy." Itineraries and travel topics about traveling on or near bodies of water are also mentioned. If you'd like to discuss these issues more, though, feel free to start a new discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am certain, that reading Australian media with clusters of travel adverts for river cruising, there are only so many rivers in the world where the conditions are ok for travel (that is length, type of boat, and adequate conditions for travel by tourist craft) with enough material to justify an article (thus perhaps allaying Hobbitschuster's anxiety about do we want an article about every river, the answer is a very definite no) I think that criterion should be where adequate information is available (same as Ikan's comment about adequate or poential content), and where genuine tourist travel occurs. There are not that many.JarrahTree (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes are approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep".  Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still in favor of deletion as there is no good target for redirection and the article in its current form does not provide much value for anybody. Furthermore it creates a slippery slop towards similar "extraregions" for each and every river which would violate if not the words than the spirit of our bodies of water policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one is going to argue for the creation or retention of articles about every river and creek. JarrahTree and I gave you a standard above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to another admin to resolve this nomination since I am biased towards resolving as "keep" per my earlier comments. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ikan Kekek, how do you know? What does the Rhine have that other rivers don't have? If we keep this and articles like Lake Constance we can just as well change our bodies of water policy to "We have articles on bodies of water whenever it tickles our fancy". Most people would probably have never heard of the Rio Coco or the Rio San Juan, but to the Miskito people the former is next to sacred and at least as important as the Rhine was to many Germans in the past and the Rio San Juan plays a similar role in disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica as did the Rhine in thankfully long gone days. We have a region named after an official term based on the river (Rio San Juan region) but unlike the Bodensee disaster we don't have another article on the body of water itself. If we keep this river and Danube as well, how can we convincingly argue for the deletion of any other river article? If someone creates an article on the Nile, surely we can't delete an article on the longest (or second longest) river in the world that gave rise to one of the most important civilizations in world history, if we have an article on the Rhine. And once that article exists, how do we argue against one on the river Congo? We could of course do that and expand the scope of WV in that way. But quite frankly, there should be a consensus to change policy. I cannot see anything at Bodies of water that would allow the retention of this article and neither can I find anything in favor of keeping Danube. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you're reading Bodies of water, but please read Bodies of water, Bodies of water, Bodies of water and the third sentence of Bodies of water. I'm sorry, but I don't see your slippery slope argument as having any real substance or relevance. If there's ever an article about the Kill Van Kull or Newtown Creek that people want to keep, maybe you'll have a point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Lake Constance
This article may or may not be in violation of our "bodies of water" policy, given that we have a region article named after the lake already, Bodensee region. Quite frankly I see no path forward that would make this article of any actual use to anybody and there is no real place to redirect it other than Central Europe which just strikes me as nonsensical Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's currently set up as an extraregion, and there are 53 links to it. I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't just leave it as-is? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Bodensee_Region only covers the German parts of the lake. I think an extraregion is appropriate to cover the Austrian and Swiss parts as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Pashley (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Policy is to use the commonest English name; arguably Bodensee Region should be redirected to this. Pashley (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * But the Bodensee Region is an actual Region article, so it shouldn't be redirected to an extraregion article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, but it might be handled like Ferghana Valley, as an extra-hierarchical region with three real regions in three countries under it.
 * I do not know the area and am not at all sure it is a good idea, but moving Bodensee Region to the English name "Lake Constance (Germany)" looks to at least be worth discussing. Pashley (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)




 * I guess 'Lake Constance' would be known by English speakers better than Bodensee, although the 'extra region' only describes the towns around the lake whereas the 'Bodensee region' reaches far into the land of Baden-Wuerttemberg state up until the city of Ulm. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment : stop feeding trolls. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Restating my case: If I don't misunderstand our bodies of water policy (such as it is) it says something along the lines of "We don't have destination style articles on bodies of water" and then there are a couple of "however"s, one of them allowing "regions named after bodies of water" (which would mean the Bodensee Region article). However, I don't see anything allowing an article such as this one when there already is another one that covers a region named after the body of water. If we want to change our bodies of water policy to a simpler: We allow articles on bodies of water if they are large enough and/or of sufficient touristic interest, I am fine with that, but unless I am misunderstanding the current policy, this is at least an article that stretches some interpretations of it. And I was told in earlier vfds, that I should cite a policy an article violates as grounds for deletion (as opposed to its size, its bare outline state or other things) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to give my own take on 'bodies of water' policy since I don't have one. :) I admire that you are tackling it, I just don't have the bandwidth to analyse and engage at this point.
 * I have sympathy with the view that Lake Constance is not a destination in itself (unless you want to zip around all the countries in a motor boat) and the article is possibly a candidate for a disambiguation page to the respective regions bordering it. Practically I would suggest just cleaning it up and making it shorter. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)