Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2021

Estremadura
After trying to make sense of our Portugal hierarchy, I now lean very strongly toward deletion of this extraregion. Although used on other WV langage editions, including Portuguese, consesus at Talk:Portugal and Talk:Portugal is that we use NUTS II regions as our first level of regional division. As this article is very sparse and contributes little to understanding the country, its regions, or its cities, I think it would be best for both travellers and editors to Delete. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would tend to vote to keep. Extraregions don't have to have long articles. What's the disadvantage of keeping the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's poorly written and has been a target of edit warring recently. I can support keeping it if it can be rewritten with consensus. I'm willing to rewrite it and let others edit as needed, but I'm afraid that a certain uncooperative editor will revert it to his skewed understaning, as has already happened a few times. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We can deal with edit warring by protecting the article. How likely is it that a reader would be interested in an article on this historical region? Even the Portuguese Wikipedia article is pretty short: if there isn't much to say about the province even in Portuguese, it probably isn't important for travellers. I prefer to follow the advice of lusophones on this question, but I think there may be a good argument for deletion.
 * do you have any thoughts on this? (I don't know how familiar you are with Portugal.) Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Both the Portuguese WP article (above) and the English one at Estremadura_Province_(1936–1976) are 100% unsourced, though Estremadura Province (historical) is. This has no direct bearing on our decisions here, but can provide some clues and guidance. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Pending further discussion, for now I will vote delete. There are hundreds of former administrative regions around the world, including in Portugal, France and Germany. I think an extraregion makes sense where there are strong historical or cultural reasons for the region to form the basis for a travel itinerary. In this case, the evidence uis that there are not such reasons. It's just a list of destinations, which is of not useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Worth noting that this is cross-wiki disruption. Gomes000 has been brought to ANI, English Wikipedia's primary conduct dispute noticeboard, for heavily edit-warring the same article. I'm not yet familiar enough with Wikivoyage's deletion policy to be confident making a hard decision either way, but this doesn't seem to be a very relevant article to travellers, and it's clearly a magnet for negative attention. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * DeleteI also agree Ground zero TravelAroundOz (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleted, per consensus.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Salvagnac
No information, completely blank. No applicable linked article in the native language. Pirate-Prototype (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This was created as part of a bulk creation by a user who was apparently only active to make those articles, and seems to lack expansion potential. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This looks to me more like a candidate for speedy deletion, along with the other dozen or so empty stubs created by user:AnglaisEP. Any alternative thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreeance with that, thanks for the ping message! Pirate-Prototype (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * user:AnglaisEP created these articles on March 17. I think we should wait one week from that date, in case they have any intention of returning to fill them in, but delete them after one week if there has been no activity. Ground Zero (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep now that an IP user has added content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - same reason as SHB2000 (talk)   06:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have nominated the others for deletion (below). Ground Zero (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as the reason for nomination was its emptiness. –LPfi (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Outcome - speedy kept... with extra speed!--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)