Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2022

Blanc Sablon-Forteau
User:Veillg1 wrote (on my talk page):
 * In "Blanc Sablon-Forteau", a redirection is programmed in Wikivoyage to "Forteau". Following the evolution of the editorial content of the "Forteau" and "Blanc-Sablon" articles, this redirection of the "Blanc Sablon-Forteau" article seems inappropriate to me. How to remove this redirect. Thanks. - Veillg1

I am copying the proposal here. Ground Zero (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this seems reasonable to me. These are separate villages that are close to each, but in different provinces. What I think happened was that one article was created for the two villages in 2014 as a hyphenated name, and later moved to Forteau. In 2022, a separate article was created for Blanc-Sablon. The hyphenated name is not a likely search term. Ground Zero (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for technical reasons. While it is unlikely someone will look up this term, this was the page name for Forteau prior to December 2014 and while unlikely, there may be external links that link to this redirect. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the redirect is needed to keep the history straight, is there a way the redirect term could be made less confusing, in that it really should redirect to two articles at once? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be any attribution issues posed by deleting this template, but as this was the former name of an article, any external links that link to Blanc Sablon-Forteau will only show a deletion log and we have no control over who links to our site. There are four internal links within articlespace, but those can be fixed which I'll do right now. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed all internal links. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for doing that. I don't think we have to worry about people who link to Wikivoyage articles from outside the site. If that's the only issue, we can delete the redirect now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia in Swedish has a guideline that any worthwhile content that has been found by some name for a significant time in the past should be findable by that name infinitely. We don't need to follow that policy, but I think it is nice. Is there some downside to keeping the page as disambiguation? –LPfi (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course: it clutters the search box. If the article were a stub at the time of the move, we could as well delete it, but it wasn't: Special:Permalink/2695628. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why I'm against deleting an otherwise harmless redirect. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't we want other websites to link to Wikivoyage though? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, but that has never come up in a deletion nomination before. That logic could be used to abolish deletion. We have to update our links and do it, so other sites that link here may on rare occasions have to update their links. That's the way things go on the Web. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re "that logic could be used to abolish deletion": not exactly. The difference between most deletion requests for redirects is those were created as redirects (e.g. our recent discussion on Van Diemen's Land) and there will be few, if any, external links to them. Meanwhile, deleting this page would be the equivalent of moving a page without a redirect, which should only be done to revert clear page-move vandalism which is why I oppose deleting this redirect. Also remember, per the policy, "as a general rule, redirect pages should not be deleted". SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As a misleading redirect, this is an exception to the rule and is best deleted. If we have to keep it, it will have to be turned into a page that has links to two articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay fair enough. But if anything, I'd support an extraregion, which is what LPfi suggested. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But I don't think it's a region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record: I supported a disambiguation page, I never suggested an extraregion. But as GZ notes that the article was under this name only for a short time, I am quite indifferent on this case. –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation is only used when there are two places with the same name though. But I don't mind it being deleted, it's just not something I favour. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. The two places aren't even adjacent. Look at the map for Forteau and the village of L'Anse-au-Clair is between them. Pashley (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any page that isn't brand new when we delete it could potentially break an old link somewhere; that's not our problem. The arguments for deletion have convinced me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was created in August 2014, and redirected to Forteau in December 2014, a period in which there was little awareness of Wikivoyage. I think there is an exceedingly small chance that anyone linked to it then, and an even smaller chance that those links still exist 8 years later. Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite. On a non-serious note, I know COVID has been a slog, but HTF is 2014 8 years ago?! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Soon that'll be 10... SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete We have separate Blanc-Sablon and Forteau articles. The only argument I can see for keeping it is that it just came first in my Google search for "Blanc Sablon-Forteau", but really this indicates that the term isn't used on the ground. If it is kept then it should be a disambig. AlasdairW (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strange that Blanc Sablon-Forteau isn't coming in my Google search (though I still favour keeping the cheap redirect). -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: deleted Pashley (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Apatity, Umba and Zapolyarny
These three articles were created by 87.74.129.131, who, albeit not confirmed, is a likely IP sock of the indef banned ArticCynda. It was even more obvious when AC's latest sockpuppet, 2A02:8070:2183:6561:2CD1:C387:2464:A827 made a bunch of edits (now reverted), but most of the content here was written by AC, and as was concluded last year, they may not edit Wikivoyage. Zell am Ziller was also created by 87.74.129.131, but since the article was not edited by AC's latest sockpuppet, this should ideally be handled in a separate deletion request IMO. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I would trust you on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WV:Deny recognition. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WV:Deny recognition. Ground Zero (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted. Before archiving it, look who cropped the banner for Apatity... SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And look at nl:Apatity. AlasdairW (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deleting destination articles that readers realistically could visit does not serve the best interest of the traveller. — 84.198.244.204
 * Sockpuppet of ArticCynda, you're banned. Community-banned means no editing on en.voy. The only reason I've decided not to revert your message was because I want to keep a log of this comment. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Political battles shouldn't be fought on Wikivoyage. The Russo-Ukrainian War is a humanitarian disaster, we can all agree on that. But erasing the country from Wikivoyage really doesn't help anyone. — 80.254.78.161
 * Struck as AC sockpuppet. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — The existence of articles for this destination on other language editions, such as voy:fa:آپاتیتی, Apatity, and Apatyty, suggests this article complies with the requirements of WIAA and should not be deleted. Destinations considered important enough to have their own article on other Wikivoyage editions probably deserve their own article on the English Wikivoyage as well. 94.119.64.78
 * Struck as AC sockpuppet. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Zell am Ziller
Similar case to the above three but has only been edited by 87.74.129.131 with a phone number fix by. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we should delete this one, but I would note the edits in question took place over a year and a half ago, and the IP hasn't edited since then. But if we do suspect the IP, we could delete this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support on this basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also support. Ground Zero (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I was willing to ignore this one until I looked at the other edits by this IP which included Apatity-1 railway station (Q16273194) and Zapolyarny mine (Q16965191), which is "an odd coincidence". AlasdairW (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete at this point. The user in question is probably reading this thread and we should best nip this in the bud with an immediate delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted. I'm still leaving this thread open if anyone wants to make an argument for keeping it (which, undoubtedly, will only be "That User" + 1 other active member of our community who is not That User). -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)