Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2018

Sanskrit phrasebook
The Indian version of Latin: culturally indispensable, but of zero use to travellers. The phrasebook itself is almost empty, so is not even good as a gimmick. If the much more complete Esperanto phrasebook qualified for deletion, with however many millions of speakers that conlang has, then a language which no-one has spoken outside of religious ceremonies for hundreds of years surely must too. Some of the interesting information on the history and features of Sanskrit could be moved elsewhere, perhaps to Indian subcontinent or the 'Understand' section of that page. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not another phrasebook nominated for deletion! But my vote is different this time for these reasons: #1, I intend for it to be permanent, and #2, I vote to keep. Travelers interested in the religious ceremonies or ancient texts would find the phrasebook useful in a way that would not have been the case for Esperanto. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This phrasebook provides translations for some numbers, and nothing else. And has done so since 2010. It will not help travellers interested in religious ceremonies or ancient texts. It would be of some help in playing a Sanskrit bingo game, but nothing beyond that. Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

After reading that article, I've decided to vote keep. It's not like keeping it would do any harm. Besides, we can always add a notice saying it's a dead language. Vulcandor (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So what use is a phrasebook for a dead language no-one speaks? There are plenty of things which would do no harm if they existed, but which wouldn't serve the traveller.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There are some places where it is spoken. ARR8 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ARR8, thanks for the link. More reason to keep the phrasebook. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 01:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we have to keep it then, even though it is useless in it's current state. Ground Zero (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, per Ground Zero, ARR8. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this changes things rather and the guide should be kept and expanded. Good research, ARR8. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a somewhat better analogy than Latin may be Hebrew, which was a dead language but revived. Sanskrit hasn't been revived to the same extent but about 20,000 people in India and 1,500 people in Nepal reported speaking Sanskrit as a first language in their most recent respective censuses. I'm a bit skeptical about whether any of those people are monolingual but you never know. I studied Sanskrit a long time ago and still have a few books on it. I'll expand what I can, though it was taught in a similar sense to Latin and Ancient Greek (learning how to read ancient texts rather than have a conversation with someone and ask where the nearest toilet is). Gizza ( roam ) 10:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

If even the person who nominated the phrasebook for deletion now wants to keep it, I'm going to say there's no point in waiting out the process; we may as well speedily keep this one. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 22:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Outcome: kept.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ferries in the Mediterranean
An article that is so out of date and going nowhere that we might as well delete it. If you want to keep it, please say how you'll improve it. Or you can always have it moved to your userspace. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure. It is a valid topic, but an unmaintained article may be worse than none. Pashley (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, this is a tough one. There are a lot of dead links that give the impression that the article is going out of date. Yet, as Pashley said, this is a valid travel topic. There is hope in this article, but it might need to be largely written to be once again up to date. This seems like more work than is worth it, considering that it's not a really important travel topic. Also, it's quite a long article, so it was to be improved, a lot of work would be necessary. Therefore, I leaning toward delete for this article, and that's the stance I'm taking. It doesn't seem to be our usual policy to go this way, but in this case I think it's the best option &mdash; but not by a lot. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 23:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how useful an article like this is to travellers, but it just got a whole bunch of updates before the nomination here. I did some updates in 2017. A ferry was added in 2016. Before that, there wasn't much activity other than the import from the predecessor site. I am not inclined to delete. Ground Zero (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this research, which moves me to neutral, seeing both sides of this situation. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 04:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. In the Mediterranean, like in the Baltic Sea and seas around Britain ferries are a common way for getting across. I think it's useful to have an overview of ferry lines, though the article (as the other ones?) could probably use an update. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with any article that lists a bunch of services and not many alternatives is keeping it up to date. I think our travel topics should generally not include a bunch of links to other company websites since a travel topic should focus on useful information, that is, paragraphs, rather than long lists. This article is designed to be a list, which means it would need quite a lot more real content. Is anyone ready to add some and improve this article? --Comment by Selfie City  (<font color="#ac6600">talk about my <font color="#ac6600">contributions ) 13:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should have more prose content, but I think a list is also good to include. But now we're talking about how to improve the article, which is best discussed on the article's talk page. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Joining the consensus: keep. Pashley (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - viable topic. Gizza ( roam ) 00:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

So that's 20 days this has been going. Is there a consensus to keep? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks that way, yes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome: kept. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Texhoma
A page with no content that has never been edited by a human. Also, isn't an actual place - the Wikidata item it's connected to is for a disambiguation between two places. ARR8 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Valid search term. But it should probably be reduced to a disambig unless someone wants to work on it. The Oklahoma side shows 3 places of interest. If someone knows something about them, there could be listings for them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect. Ground Zero (talk)
 * Keep, since it seems to pass the sleep test. However, I think the article's wording "pair of towns" should be changed to "a town" because it is de facto one town in two states. --Comment by <font color="#808000">Selfie City  (<font color="#ac6600">talk about my <font color="#ac6600">contributions ) 13:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, because we don't delete real places. I don't know whether it should be its own article or a redirect to somewhere nearby. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It could be converted into a disambig page. The two communities have a total population of 1300, and the main attraction appears to be the border sign. Stratford (Texas) and Guymon are the nearest places that we do have articles for, and they are about the same distance away. AlasdairW (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not a disambig page unless it links to individual articles for at least two different non-contiguous places with the same name (such as Portland (Oregon) as a colony of Portland (Maine). If there are a pair of articles linked for adjacent, contiguous places (like Nogales or Niagara Falls, split by the Mexico and Canada borders respectively) the general description page is an extraregion, not a disambig. If this is a Glenrio-sized speck on a map, there aren't and won't be two separate articles (or enough content to justify same) so nothing to disambiguate. K7L (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that both sides of the city should be treated as one destination. The only reason that the city is officially two separate cities is because the state line cuts through the middle of it. --Comment by <font color="#808000">Selfie City  (<font color="#ac6600">talk about my <font color="#ac6600">contributions ) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - would support a redirect, but what would you redirect it to? The only article above it in the hierarchy that isn't on either side of the county/state/region border is USA.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to that is, on which of the state line do most of the people live. Then you can redirect accordingly. But I think the best thing for now is to treat the Texhoma article as an ordinary city article, rather than as some unusual occurrence. --Comment by <font color="#808000">Selfie City  (<font color="#ac6600">talk about my <font color="#ac6600">contributions ) 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's essential. But if the part in one state is way more important than the part in the other state, we could redirect and cover the parts in both states in a single article that's breadcrumbed to that state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Move relevant information to its parent article and make a redirect - there is almost no useful content. --Zerabat (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Outcome: kept. There is clear consensus not to delete. There's some support for redirecting but no consensus for where to redirect it to, so for now I'm leaving it as an outline, and discussion can take place on the talk page to figure out whether a redirect makes sense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)