Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2020

Lunca
Not a valid dabpage. Claims that there are more than 100 villages that have to do with it, but only disambiguates one page. Either delete, add topics, or redirect to the one topic that there is for it. This page was also created by a user Arabia619, who appears to be a sock of the telstra vandal --Prahlad balaji (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC) (and modified at 17:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC))


 * Comment I agree with Prahlad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There are indeed several communes, districts and villages by that name, see the Wikipedia page. 13 of them seem to have Wikipedia pages. If we transform the page to a redirect, somebody should check whether Lunca Ilvei indeed is the main Lunca. I see no indication Lunca Ilvei is ever called "Lunca", which suggests there is no problem deleting the disambiguation page. It might of course still be called so, at least locally. –LPfi (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is, do those Wikipedia pages have Wikivoyage pages? --Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. I think the question is whether they will have in a foreseeable future. Do we have somebody working on Romania? That/those person(s) could perhaps check whether any of the Luncas are first in line to get articles. But until these other articles are created we don't need a disambiguation page, and even then only if more than one is commonly called just Lunca. –LPfi (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no use for this page. -User:AdamT777 (talk 23:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Outcome - deleted --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested articles/Old requests

 * Delete. The entire point of Requested articles is that when the requested article is created, the request is granted. Only if there's discussion might that be relevant to keep, and if so, it should be moved to the talk page of the new article. Archiving a page of requested articles is a waste of time. Moreover, "old" requests that have not been granted need to be moved back to Requested articles, never archived. I have been deleting no-longer-needed listings at Requested articles forever, as I believe have others, so Requested articles/Old requests would never be a complete archive, anyway, unless people really want to waste a lot of time resurrecting deleted granted requests. Also see Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles/Old requests Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Before today (my time zone: PDT), I don’t think this page was edited since 2018. I’m new but I believe after the article is created we should delete it from our list. Simple as that. I agree with what Ikan Kekek said above that it’s a waste of time to archive completed requests to this page. User:AdamT777 (User talk:AdamT777) 0:17, 18 September (UTC)
 * Delete. Pashley (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I had concerns with it soon after it was created (see the talk page). It's easier to remove the completed requests and to keep the redlinks until they are created. If there is a view that the list of requested articles is becoming too long, then it can be divided by article type such as destinations and travel topics instead of by the time the request was made. Gizza ( roam ) 04:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Requested Articles/Slush Pile as that was the original intention and such a thing has value; it allows to remove previously failed or withdrawn proposals to be identified and removed if needed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose a slush pile for Requested articles. Any proposal that is deemed inappropriate for the site (if not vandalism) should remain visible, along with the reply explaining why it's not appropriate. Otherwise, it could be requested again. And if it's not inappropriate and the article hasn't been started, it doesn't matter how "old" the request is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: All suggested article topics that have not been started were moved back from Requested articles/Old requests to Requested articles. There is no content left to merge, so the article can simply be deleted on October 1 unless there are more objections to doing so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe this article can be deleted as today is October 1. AdamT777 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Outcome: deleted.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Charming Villas
Tagged for speedy deletion as spam by User:DannyS712.


 * I do not think it needs deletion; it is definitely touty, but that's acceptable on a user page. Checking contributions I see the user has added some restaurant listings but has not touted his or her company in main space. Pashley (talk)


 * User pages are not an exception from the don't tout policy, and I'd normally summarily delete this kind of page and post the subst:tout template on their user page. Do we really have to discuss this? This kind of thing happens so frequently, so if we have to spend time discussing it each time, it'll be very time-consuming. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Deleted, per Don't tout.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

North Gyeongsang counties
User:Gyeongbuker was blocked in Wikipedia (w:User:Gyeongbuker) as a sock puppet of w:User:Ec21imc, who was in turned blocked first for copyright violations, and then "for advertising or promotion". This contributor created a bunch of not very useful articles about South Korean counties that look like they were copy-and-pasted from somewhere. These articles are often composed of a list of sights with no information, accompanied by historical information that is incomprehensible, and/or detailed, technical location or climate information. Gyeongbuker did not take up our invitations to create more useful articles. I propose to delete/redirect these crappy articles because they are not useful to travellers and are likely copyright violations: Uiseong County, Bonghwa County, Kimcheon, Yecheon County, Yeongyang County, Goryeong. Ground Zero (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete; trolls and vandals should not get to create articles that are undeletable per a very weird but ever-more entrenching interpretation of policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect the articles but indefinitely ban the user if he isn't already. How to handle unwanted edits allows for "[b]locks of users or IP addresses that are blocked for vandalism or other malicious editing on other Wikimedia projects. If a user or IP address has been blocked on another Wikimedia project and makes a similar malicious edit on Wikivoyage, the same block settings that have been used on the other project may be applied here." -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the above if it can be demonstrated that the articles do indeed constitute copyright violation, after all that is what the user was blocked for on Wikipedia.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just checked some of the prose from four of the articles, and can find no evidence of copied content through a Google search.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect, we don't need more pcv/Telstra-style articles and edits. Ypsilon (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case why is your vote to redirect and not to delete? I genuinely don't understand the reasoning. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect, and I oppose banning this user, who has IMO done nothing on this site to warrant a ban or even a 3-day block, probably. If anyone wants to ban this user, start a thread on User ban nominations. Under no circumstances should "because they were banned on another Wikimedia project", regardless of the reason they were banned and whether they've done anything on Wikivoyage that warrants a userban, be the sole reason to ban anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, if your position is that users banned on other WMF sites should not receive equivalent bans here for equivalent problem edits, then you need to press for a(nother) change to How to handle unwanted edits, because at the present time, that's what our policy explicitly endorses (and explicitly states that such a ban can be applied automatically, without going through the User ban nominations process). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As the editor has not contributed for two weeks, I doubt there's an issue here. Ground Zero (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just an observation. You see, that's the problem I have with the overall account issue across multiple wikis. If one wiki checkusers and confirms an account to be a sockpuppet of another, that linkage applies on other wikis. There is a disconnect in a way that even if the confirmed sockpuppet account is banned in one wiki, they can still use this sock account at other wikis. It seems like there is no automatic notification or blocking action across projects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower, if you can identify a pattern of copyright violation by this user on this site, they can indeed be blocked for that. What is the "equivalent problem" you've seen here? Also, OhanaUnited, when you bring up sockpuppets, keep in mind that User:Ec21imc is not blocked here, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just making a general observation that applies to all sockpuppet cases. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the lack of an automatic ban for users who were banned on other projects such as Wikipedia is deliberate here, not an oversight. A notification could be useful, though, as it helps us be on guard in case they prove to be problem users here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Questions: First, Are the site listings real attractions in those areas? My second question is: What is the proposed redirect for each of these articles, and are the listings going to be transferred? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Don't know. The lists of supposed sites have no practical information attached to them. (They aren't "listings".) It would take someone with a knowledge of the Korean language to sort that out. The contributor who added them ghosted us when asked to provide more information.
 * 2. North Gyeongsang. The lists of sites have no practical information attached to them. Readers are not losing anything if these lists are removed.
 * Ground Zero (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Again; what reason is there not to delete those articles summarily? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they're reasonable search terms. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or Delete Based on the answers above, I agree with Hobbitschuster. It does not serve the travelers (or editors) to punish destinations because a user created too many articles. If I made articles for all of the red links in Shiga but contributed no content (or listings without descriptions), it wouldn't make sense to make them all redirects to Shiga. Who does that benefit? There is no information about them in the Shiga article and now we've made it less friendly for editors (particularly new editors) to start up articles for those cities. The same is true for these articles and North Gyeongsang. The purpose here is to punish an editor, right? If that's the case, delete his/her articles. The articles have content, though, and looking up some of the listings, they appear to be real. I don't know if there are cities/towns rather than counties that would be better for the content, but the content itself seems fine to keep. It wouldn't take much to give at least a few of the listings descriptions. If the user is being considered a "vandal" or a "troll" of some sort, we should just return the listings to how they were before the vandalism (aka: delete them) not arbitrarily make them a bunch of redirects that serve no purpose for travelers OR editors. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that crappy articles that provide no useful information turn off readers. If my entry point to Wikivoyage had been an article that provides unreadable history and a random list of sites with no address, context, or other information, I probably would have dismissed Wikivoyage as a waste of time. Those articles hurt the project. Ikan Kekek, Granger, Gizza and I all tried to engage Gyeongbuker to try to get useful contributions, and nothing came of it.  Gizza has added details to several of the articles, so I have removed those Vfd nominations. If you think it wouldn't take much to give the listings some details and make the articles worth keeping, please go ahead. That's the fastest way to resolve this. We should not keep articles that serve no purpose to travellers, like those created by Gyeongbuker, if no-one is willing to improve them. Ground Zero (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then we should delete them, not redirect them just because someone created the articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect, block the user, and report them to m:SRG for global locking due to cross-wiki abuse from them. --Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: No-one's going to push back at the notion that how we handle these articles/search terms is motivated by a desire to "punish" a user? Nothing personal, but I consider that absurd and would strongly protest any decision based on such a motivation. The traveller comes first should be the only basis of our handling of these articles. And in terms of blocking a user, what would be the reasonable basis for doing so when they are not editing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the traveller does come first. Gizza has added practical information on sights to a few of the articles, so I have removed them from the nomination, and added a bit more info to make those articles more substantial. The remaining articles are hopeless messes that are not useful to travellers. Those are the ones I am proposing to delete/redirect. Blocking the user is another matter, which is not included in the nomination. I don't see it as necessary,  but if others want to take that issue up, it's up to them. I think that the VFD is valid, and don't want to see it sidetracked by issues that are not the subject of the nomination, like punishing or blocking the contributor. Ground Zero (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) To reiterate what I wrote above, there is no justification based in WV policy for a block based on what this person has done on WV. And the Deletion_policy is pretty clear that "redirecting is usually preferred to deletion" when "(2) The redirect is for a real place and there is an appropriate redirect target." Policies exist so we don't have to wing it every time a decision needs to be made. I'd suggest those who are calling for actions other what our policies say should either get the policy changed or concede the point and let us move on.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the Google search for copypasta came up negative, I'm satisfied that a block for this user is not warranted. My comment to Ikan Kekek sprang from having misread his earlier remarks: he said "under no circumstances should 'because they were banned on another Wikimedia project'... be the sole reason to ban anyone", and I glossed over the word "sole", which left me with the mistaken impression that he was questioning the policy in general, not just its applicability in this particular case. As for whether the articles should be deleted, I have no strong feelings either way and am happy to go along with however consensus turns out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We prefer to redirect real places. However, that requires that there is some information on the place in the target article, either from before or added when redirecting. If the reader has no idea why he or she ended up in North Gyeongsang after typing Bonghwa County, and the former is no help in planning a trip to the latter, then a redirect does not serve the traveller. If providing useful information in the redirect target is more trouble than it's worth (for those of us who would have to add the info, not a hypothetical local), then deleting is a better path. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Bonghwa County is still tagged as VfD. Is that still valid? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LPfi, the simple solution for that problem would be to list the names of the constituent counties in the relevant region articles, although that kind of list is boring. But my feeling is, that's a solution looking for a problem, because if people don't understand the redirect (as you say, where they ended up), how would they know about the county? Isn't that analogous to looking for Dutchess County and being unaware that it's in New York State? How many people do you think are like that? Maybe 12 in the world? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The redirect/merge serves no purpose in that case EXCEPT to let the user know the region it is located in, and that's the problem. The user probably DOES know where it is. They want travel information, not a geography lesson. I agree with LPfi that deletion should be preferred over merging in such circumstances. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the region article has relevant information: how to get to the region, how to get around and thus reach the destination, general info on accommodations, local foods etc. That requires a good region article. If the traveller knows where the destination is, they can probably look up the region anyway, without a redirect. But indeed, I seem to belong to the 12 – I might look it up having heard Roosevelt's former home is there, without otherwise having heard about the county. I have done that kind of things quite often. –LPfi (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One problem with just a redirect is it doesn't tell whether it is for the place I try to find or for a namesake. The other problem is that the redirect says little about what info is relevant: there are trains to some places in North Gyeongsang, but are there any to Bonghwa County? Is also that county part of the "epicentre of culture"? –LPfi (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the strength or weakness of a region article a policy-based reason for deletion of a normal search term, rather than redirection? Sure, it would be good if the region articles were improved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If we are really redirecting places for pure policy-reasons that will not and are not meant to serve the traveler, then the policy should be changed. I started a discussion to [change the policy] on the deletion policy talk page. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC) I've reviewed the articles again, and there isn't really any information worth incorporating into the North Gyeongsang article. I understand the point that if someone searches on Uiseong County, and ends up at an article that doesn't mention Uiseong, its not really helpful. Similarly, listingbthe 13 counties without information about a bunch of them doesn't make sense either. I'm inclined to delete without redirect. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 13 counties, but how many counties per region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 13 counties in North Gyeongsang Province, which is the next article up in the hierarchy. Ground Zero (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...that's a lot of counties. I guess I'm feeling more neutral now, though I still tend to think there's no harm (or at least less harm) in redirecting the names, now that we have articles for them. I'd feel different if there were 50 and probably 30, but I'd be more sure of supporting redirection if there were 4. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice that the Gimcheon (Kimcheon) article has much more useful information than the others and has existed since 2015. I'd say keep that one at least. I'm neutral on the others, though to be honest I don't see why we would delete them either (unless there's evidence of copyvio, but no one has demonstrated that). If we agree these are valid destinations, then our usual practice is to keep the articles and try to improve them. I agree with ChubbyWimbus that redirecting doesn't seem to make much sense in this case. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kimcheon was created by this user, but I have redirected it to the existing Gilchrist article, so there is no longer a reason to delete it. I've removed it from the list. Ground Zero (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean to Gimcheon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stupid autocucumber! [Shakes fist at technology.] Ground Zero (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm okay with deleting the others—I took a stab at improving a couple of them, and it seems really difficult to make progress without being able to read Korean. We should also think about what to do with Ulleung County (see Talk:Ulleung County for a discussion I've started). —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're treating the counties as subregions of North Gyeongsang, isn't it a problem of incomplete regionalization (~districtification) to have articles for some but not others? I think if we're keeping some articles, we should keep all of them. Maybe we could solicit some help from Korean Wikimedians/Wikipedians like the professor whose students sometimes participate here (although they're in the Seoul area)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought these were city or rural area articles rather than regions. None of the cities listed at North Gyeongsang are in counties, so the idea of using counties as a regionalization seems unworkable to me. From some research online, it seems that South Korean counties, like Chinese counties, are somewhat different from what "counties" mean in most of the US. It looks like they are mostly rural and exist on the same administrative level as legally designated cities, rather than containing cities (but I'm just inferring—I don't know much about South Korea). North Gyeongsang Province may be helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. That changes things. In that case, if we redirect county articles, it would probably be best to redirect them to the article for the nearest city, not the province. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, though if there isn't any information about the county covered in nearby city articles, deletion might be preferable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's no easy way to look up the lists under "See" in the VfD county articles, could we put something in prose in the articles for the nearest cities, thereby merging content? I think if nothing else, those lists should be preserved on talk pages somewhere for whomever wants to create real listings out of them. I'm talking about lists like Uiseong County. We could instead make turning these into real listings into a cotm, along with populating other articles that lack "See" listings or have names without real listings. I was looking at Grundy last night, for example. It's a county seat and doesn't completely lack sights; see Grundy and Commons Category:Grundy, Virginia, although indeed it might make more sense to turn this into a rural area article for Buchanan County. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's move the lists to Talk:North Gyeongsang, so that if someone wants to build articles, the information is there. As counties have a population of less than 150,000, according to the Wikipedia article, it seems unlikely that useful articles will be created anytime soon, but you never know. Ground Zero (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Less than 150,000 isn't necessarily a low population, though. There are lots of good articles about places with much lower populations than that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. Lists of sites moved to Talk:North Gyeongsang. Ground Zero (talk)