Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2015

Viazul
It has a vfd tag right on top of the page but isn't mentioned here Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Create a Bus travel in Cuba article, merge and redirect Also have a look at Talk:Viazul --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Cuba. I'm unconvinced of the need for a Bus travel in Cuba article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-merge and redirect to Cuba, which can be done simply be redirecting this page and then reverting this change. I'm also unconvinced of the need to have a Bus travel in Cuba article, as the current information fit just fine in the Cuba article before it was stripped out, and the rest that was added was just timetables which we explicitly try to avoid in the first place. Texugo (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with a new bus travel in Cuba article I think if a bus travel in the United States or intercity buses in Germany article can exist so can one on buses in Cuba. Even sans timetable that we shouldn't include for obvious reasons. In my humble opinion the whole subject of bus travel is dealt with too little for no apparent reason. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What we had before obviously fits in the Cuba article and wouldn't be enough to stand on its own, so unless you are personally volunteering to start adding lots more info for such an article right now, I'm not really sure that "merge to something we don't have yet" is really a valid outcome to vote for. The normal procedure would be to let the info grow organically within the Cuba article and then split it out only when it starts to overwhelm. Texugo (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bus travel is reasonably complicated in Cuba. Taking the Viazul (the tourist bus) is easy and straightforward and doesn’t justify having an own article (at least if not including the timetable). Taking local non-labeled buses that sometimes aren’t more than trucks sometimes even without seats is a whole different story that no guidebook so far covers and only few travelers experience. I can’t really contribute a lot to that topic though, but there should be a place where it’s easy for people to do that though. Rumpeltux (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Schedule information is very valuable due to lack of internet in Cuba. Linking to the website, and asking the traveller to navigate and download that instead is not a better alternative. Any offline travel guide would have this info, we should not be more stringent. If the schedule information is kept, a separate article is justifiable due to its size. Note that Viazul isn't one of many bus companies being given extra attention on WV, but the only reliable state run bus company for those spending CUCs. Magedq (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Same arguments as Magedq gave, which are the reasons I created the article in the first place and defended on Talk:Viazul. Rumpeltux (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure these Keep votes are even valid, because this VfD page is where we judge pages against existing policies, not where we change or make new policies. A valid vote to Keep would be one that represents an opinion that the article in question is in keeping with current policy, but the above is clearly something else. Current policy pretty clearly disallows articles about individual travel companies, and making an exception would clearly open the door for many articles for other similar situations around the world, so a policy proposal/discussion/consensus would need to be had before this could be kept. Therefore prose from this article has to be restored back into the body of the Cuba article, where nobody can really claim it doesn't fit anyway, and the rest of the scheduley stuff needs to go. Please note that including such detailed line/schedule information is also contrary to current practice and would similarly need a discussion/consensus before we change our approach to one where we assume responsibility for making sure we update our info in a timely manner every time the official source does. If an exception were made here, there would be identical reasons for making exceptions elsewhere, and we would very soon be in a position where doing weekly or even monthly checks and updates of such articles would require a great deal of dedication, at the risk of giving travellers incorrect information. We must judge this article against current existing policy, not against what we wish policy were. Later, if we do somehow we get a consensus to change our approach and policy in the future, this article can always be recreated. Texugo (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don’t mind the naming or organization format of the schedule information, so probably the VfD is a bad place to discuss this, because there are really two issues here (bus company specific article & availability of schedule information). If including schedules is against WV policy, then WV should not have any schedules at all, but that’s just not the case (and that’s good!). It’s just not kept in a central place before, which imo is superior though, because it's easier to bulk update once an error is noticed instead of checking dozens of individual articles. For the Cuba case e.g. these articles already include schedule information for Viazul anyways: Trinidad (Cuba), Cienfuegos, Viñales Rumpeltux (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right that VfD is not the appropriate place to discuss that. The fact remains that the article not only runs afoul of our practice of discouraging timetables but goes against our established policy against transportation company articles. It is not so exceptionally unique that keeping it wouldn't imply blanket exceptions for many other similar situations - it would imply exactly that, a whole new class of transport company articles, which is why there is no legitimate way to keep this right now without having a new policy consensus. This goes, it has to. People are of course free at any time to start a discussion elsewhere toward allowing this kind of thing, but until and unless a consensus is obtained on that, this article is very clearly in delete territory, and keeping the article would just be analogous to a court acquitting a defendant in the hope that the laws he broke will change in the future. It just doesn't fly. We have also seen in the past what a mess it makes to try to keep a VfD discussion open for months while people try to obtain such a consensus on a related policy. We need to close this now and move on. We won't have lost anything if we later decide we do want to do things this way &mdash; recreating it would be quite simple enough. Texugo (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First at least in jury systems, there is such a thing as jury nullification, where a defendant while guilty according to the letter of the law is acquitted because the jury dislikes the law. And I still have to ask: Which policy would be violated if we just moved merged renamed (whatever) the content to a new "bus travel in Cuba" site. Including or not including the schedule information for all I care... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not believe we are anywhere near any kind of unaninimity against our long-standing policy, Hobbitschuster. And, I'm not saying that making a new "bus travel in Cuba" article would violate any policy. I'm just saying that 1) there is not currently enough information to warrant splitting it out of the main Cuba article, and 2) that should be a separate issue on which the result of this VfD should not be dependent. Result: the timetable goes away, the non-timetable content goes back to the Cuba article as before and any potential "bus travel in Cuba" article can be built from that point forward, provided that there is someone willing to do the actual work, and starting by expanding what's in the Cuba article and splitting it out to its own "bus travel in Cuba" article if and when the info begins to overwhelm that article. Texugo (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well maybe I am mistaken, but a section tends to limit itself in the scope of its content, something an article doesn't do as much. But I am of course no expert on the subject... What I do know is that overall our coverage on bus travel lacks behind our coverage on driving and even that on rail travel. Probably because many people think bus travel is pretty much self-explanatory, which it is imho only to those who never use an unknown system. The German bus system (which we cover) would probably be very confusing to a Nicaraguan. In Nicaragua standing on the bus is common and prices are the same regardless when you buy. In Germany standing is not allowed on long distance buses and tickets are considerably cheaper when bought in advance online (something that isn't even possible in Nicaragua). Now we can of course delete the viazul article and be done with it, but there is certain rationale that the schedule information is useful for the traveler (and probably would be included in most "dead trees" travel guides) so maybe we can move it to the user space of the user who created the article in the first place if (s)he is okay with that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: Merged and redirected to Cuba. --Saqib (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bremen (state)
Consists of only Bremen and Bremerhaven and I could not think of any thing of relevance to a traveler to say about the state as a whole. To my knowledge we don't have articles about Hamburg (state) or Berlin (state) either. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Policy has always been to redirect real places. If there is actually a state, redirect it, either to Bremen or to the region above. See Fuzhou (prefecture) or Cebu Island for examples of how such things are handled elsewhere. Pashley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Removing Bremen from the hierarchy would leave Bremen and Bremerhaven orphaned. Powers (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well Neuwerk is a real inhabited place that belongs to the state of Hamburg, but we don't have a Hamburg (state) article, where we would put that if we had such an article. Maybe we can treat Bremerhaven as if it were part of Lower Saxony? After all, we don't have articles for all the departamentos of Nicaragua or all the counties of all states of the USA. So there is no definitive need for keeping a perpetual outline for a state that is identical to two cities. I'm fine with redirecting though, as most people assume the city and the state of Bremen to be the same thing anyway. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with deleting Bremen (state), which nowadays is just an administrative thing, putting Bremerhaven under Lower Saxony and having the city of Bremen linked from the Regions section of Germany as Hobbitschuster suggested. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We had a long discussion which resulted in hierarchy for Germany to start with states (which I did not totally support but in the end agreed with). We could go back to a more geographical organisation but that will start lots of debate that just wastes effort. Not sure about putting Bremerhaven under Lower Saxony but I guess with some explanation on the pages it would work. I had been thinking of an article on Bremen-Vegesack which is distinct from Bremen and has some POI and good restaurants. Where would this be put? One method I suppose is to create districts under Bremen similar to the way Hamburg and Berlin are handled. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think at some point in time Bremen might well deserve districtification. We might also handle Bremerhaven as a "district" of Bremen, but I don't think, that's workable. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For the love of Wurst and Pretzel, let's not go back. I would treat Bremerhaven as a part of Bremen, much like we do with Travemuende, which is a part of Luebeck (even though the latter is no longer a Freie Stadt). PrinceGloria (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But we have separate articles for Lübeck and Travemünde, don't we? I am sorry, but I don't quite get your point....Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the point - that's option one you outlined @ Talk:Bremen. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

result: merged with Bremen city article and made Bremerhaven a district of Bremen (as of now) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on, that's jumping the gun, don't you think? First and foremost, we can't have Bremerhaven be a district of a large city (which Bremen is).  Powers (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The district thing has been changed. Bremerhaven is now a city within the city of Bremen. I was not proposing anything just stating the status quo as of than. Best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that doesn't fit our Geographical hierarchy either; cities can't contain other cities. Powers (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't take any position in this discussion except that the distance and travel time between Bremen and Bremerhaven should be clearly indicated. However, there is at least one precedent for containing cities within another city: The boroughs of New York City all have City or Huge City templates. That could be the exception that proves the rule, but it is a precedent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are exactly three like that, Ikan Kekek, and all three of those exceptions were made exclusively because the number of district articles was too overwhelming to organize on the main city page, and it was felt that there was so much material that an intermediate hierarchy level was needed between, for example, New York City and the 30 small neighborhoods that make up Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens. What you're seeing there is a case of a three-tiered super-Huge city, a Huge city with Districts under it (boroughs) with Subdistricts under those (Soho/Central Park/Times Square/etc.). We simply haven't felt the need to create a new article type for this intermediate level because there are only three such cities on the whole site. So it really isn't at all analogous to the case at hand here. Texugo (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it certainly isn't analogous, as you explain, but it is at least somewhat of a precedent. What are the other two examples? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong and Los Angeles. And no, I wouldn't call it a precedent. The fact that the intermediate levels like Brooklyn show as cities is actually just a fudge so we don't have to create a new little used "zone/borough" article type. Texugo (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See the example I cited very early in the discussion, Fuzhou (prefecture), for a better way to do it. The prefecture article redirects to the next level up and places like Mawei (which is a district of Fuzhou in the Chinese admin system, but 20-odd km away) get their own articles with breadcrumbs pointing neither to the city or prefecture but to Northern_Coast_(Fujian), the next level up. Pashley (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The two cases are pretty much analogous; Bremerhaven is the port for Bremen & Mawei the port for Fuzhou. Pashley (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: merged with Bremen. --Saqib (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Kozhikode Airport
I'm unconvinced that this is the type of airport we need an article for. It's only the 12th busiest airport in India and only the 3rd busiest one in Kerala. It doesn't appear to have any of its own restaurants or shops really (everything listed now is kilometers away), and certainly doesn't appear large or complex enough to need a guide to get around it. Its international flights are limited to a handful of Middle East destinations (Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait), and there is no indication that it handles connecting flights in any significant number. It does not therefore appear to meet the criteria we've set out for airport articles.
 *  Delete Merge to Kondotty - Texugo (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to Karippur, change to Small city article template. I was surprised to see this article turned into an airport article, but I thought I'd see how that developed. However, it looks to me like there is enough content for a city article. If the article were merely deleted, where would you move the content? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I figure most of it probably goes in Kondotty, on the side of the airport where the main highway goes through, since Karippur seems to be little more than a village on the butt side away from the highway. Not sure though, since the listings don't have much location info so far. Texugo (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I turned this into an Airport article mostly so that it could actually be judged as an airport worthy article (or not). No particular issue to merge the relevant parts to the nearest city. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Kondotty as Texugo suggests. It then does not matter much if we delete this or redirect it. I'd mildly favour deletion so that a search for Kozhikode does not turn up the redirect. Pashley (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no "merge and delete" as that destroys the edit history, a no-no if any of the CC-BY-SA text is kept. Perhaps "move without leaving a redirect" is the admin button you'd be looking for? K7L (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we don't want a redirect for the airport name, we could first move it to Karippur and then merge and redirect from there. Texugo (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you need the "move without leaving a redirect" or else you get a double redirect Kozhikode Airport &rarr; Karippur &rarr; Kondotty. I believe the original poster wanted Kozhikode Airport to redlink at the end of this? K7L (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes, you'd need "move without leaving a redirect", of course. I was the original poster above and have changed my vote to "merge to Kondotty" accordingly. As for whether we should leave a redirect from the airport article or move it to have the redirect from Karippur, I really don't have an opinion. Texugo (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case it is a new (1 day old) article with only one contributor, so removal of 'CC-BY-SA' is not a real concern here. No need to be dogmatic. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Assist a new user understand the conventions of the site, no put enthusiastic contributors off working on the site.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is already being done by yourself and others on his talk page, but it ultimately has no bearing on the fact that this airport does not meet the criteria we have set out for airport articles. We don't keep pages or stretch our definitions just because someone is a new user. Our criteria are set the way they are specifically to keep articles like this one from being created, because if the bar were this low, we'd have to have loads and loads of articles to cover every airport of any meager importance. Texugo (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just do not think it is very friendly or productive within a day or so of a new contributor creating a page to be putting delete tags on the work. Yes it probably is not following guidelines and needs some attention but there are so many old bad quality pages here, lets not jump on new users so quickly. I do not want to get at anyone in particular here, we have all been guilty of it (including myself). I just think this is another example of experienced users being too enthusiastic about criticising and editing new input. We need to encourage new participants otherwise this site will remain the hobby of a small number of people. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Kondotty. To Traveler100's comments above, I agree that it's always a good idea to help newcomers acclimate, but it's also a two-way street. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect new editors to err on the side of caution in their contributions until they're more familiar with community policies and norms. That's certainly the mindset that I had when I first started contributing.


 * And it's not as if we guard our policies like a state secret, either - they're written in plain language that anyone can understand, and there's a link to them displayed prominently on the left side of every page on this site. If the author of this article knew enough to seek out the standard skeleton template for airport articles before creating the page, s/he should certainly have had enough foresight to speculate on whether our policy allows for articles about regional airports of middling importance.


 * Of course, even in the best-case scenario every newbie is going to make mistakes from time to time - we all did. But by the same token, anyone who hopes to be a successful member of our community needs to be open to being corrected when necessary and, in general, educated by longer-standing members on how things are done around here. For a new editor to get overly defensive or take things personally in a situation like this, is a red flag that s/he might not grow into a positive addition to our community. I want to see the ranks of our contributors grow as much as anyone else, but I prefer quality over quantity.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, let it be clearly understood that my comments above refer to the hypothetical scenario Traveler100 hinted at above ("...otherwise this site will remain the hobby of a small number of people"), and not about the real-life situation of the user who created this article, who AFAIK has not reacted to this VfD at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Prof tpms did not start that article as an airport article, but as a city article about a village that among other things has an airport in it, nor did s/he introduce the airport article template. Had it remained a city article, I don't think we would be having this Vfd discussion at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That is kind of confusing... is the article name accurate if it not actually an airport but nevertheless defined by the existence of an airport in the vicinity? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I had assumed at first that that was actually the name of the village, but it seems not. There is a somewhat analogous situation with Farook College, which is the unofficial name of a village, not just the name of a college. It would be good to hear from User:Prof tpms on whether the town around the airport is unofficially but widely called "Kozhikode Airport", rather than Karippur. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to be an airport with many names, but importantly its website calls it Kozhikode Airport therefore the name should be reserved for the Airport itself. (whether or not it qualifies for an airport article is a separate question) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the airport's official website. The airport is managed by the Airports Authority of India and their page for it is http://aai.aero/allAirports/calicut_general.jsp, which calls it Calicut International Airport. Nurg (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Kozhikode Airport should remain on Wikivoyage because-
 * 1) The airport is 26.6 km away from Kozhikode
 * 2) It is not in Kozhikode district but in Malappuram district
 * 3) I have personally counted eight hotels near the airport and listed them.
 * 4) The nearest town of Kondotty has a separate entity even though it is only 3 k.m. away.
 * 5) It is not a small airport. It has direct flights to five foreign countries. The traffic is heavy. Regards, Prof tpms (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * comment With all due respect, Prof tpms, but our criteria for airport articles are tough. Hahn for example is not an airport article, despite the airport having flights to a number of international destinations, it being not in or close to any city worth of that name (Hahn only has an article because of the airport close to it). If I am not mistaken we originally had no articles for airports whatsoever, but than someone argued as huge airports (focus on huge) are complicated and some of them may even be destinations all by themselves, there is value for the traveler in including articles on them. Now I am not all that fond of articles on hamlets, but it is a long standing policy to not have articles on small or medium sized airports and this is not the place to discuss a change of said policy. If you look at the airport template, there are a couple of things, that probably don't apply to the airport in question, which should be a red flag. I have been to Frankfurt Airport and Atlanta airport and can understand how they are confusing to first time visitors and there is value for the traveler to know about their layout and things like that, but I don't think you are making the case. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hahn is a good example of a destination where the importance of a minor airport overwhelms the importance of a very minor community around it.
 * Can we just not rename to Karippur (the district where this airport falls) ? Karippur Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not big enough to fit the criteria for an "airport" article so I have reverted it to the template for a small city or town, as Prof tpms originally used. So the question now is should it remain as a separate destination, a la Hahn, or should it be merged to Kondotty. And if it remains separate, what should it be named. As a matter of interest, the EMEA College of Arts and Science gives its own location as "Kumminiparamba, Kondotti", even though it is on the opposite (south-west) side of the airport from Kondotty town. The Airport Senior Secondary School (on the north-west side of the airport) describes itself as being "in the Airport colony, Calicut International Airport". Karipur, other than being the airport location, seems to be a hamlet. Nurg (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It would have been preferable to conclude the discussion on the name Nurg before changing the template.
 * In any case if it is not an airport then we need to update the name quickly. Based in Wikipedia I move to rename this Karippur . Any objections? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Karipur" is the more common spelling (see w:Talk:Karipur) and the Wikipedia article has now been renamed Karipur. At present I have no objection to renaming the WV article to Karipur. Nurg (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a merge to Karipur, if that makes the most sense, but will there be much of anything left in the article once we move the things that actually belong elsewhere? As far as I can tell we have:
 * in Kondotty: Pushpak Hotel, Ayyadan Residency
 * in Mundappuram, on the Kondotty (north) side of the airport: Haj House, Hotel Benzy Palace, Nuhman Tourist Home
 * some distance away along the highway through Kondotty: Apna Bakery (3km), Pilot Restaurant (7km)
 * There are three hotels and one shop that bring up no relevant results in Google beyond our article here (Riya Residency, Hotel Avinsha, Thekkeppuram Tourist Home, Arabian Chocolates), but I don't think the chances are actually very high that any of them are actually in Karipur either, since Karipur is on the less-developed backside of the airport away from the main thoroughfare. And that's it, that's all there is in the article so far. We don't have a single thing that we are sure is actually in Karipur, and I think that if we are honest in putting all the listings in their respective nearest article, there will be nothing left for a potential Karipur article. So, at this point, I still support a merge to Kondotty because I think that is the logical place for just about all the current listing content. Texugo (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

After reading all the observations made by other editors and administrators during the last four days, I also feel that merging Kozhikode Airport with Kondotty is the best option available. Prof tpms (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Accepting the opinions of all the Wikovoyagers above, I have moved Kozhikode Airport to Karippur today. The spelling 'Karippur' is more appropriate and locally used than the Wikipedia spelling Karipur because the latter cannot match the Malayalam pronunciation of the word. Prof tpms (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: merged with Karippur. --Saqib (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)