Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2025

← August 2025 Votes for deletion archives for September 2025 (current) October 2025 →

Sweedn

Usually I don't have issues with redirects that "might not be that useful" but this one strikes me as just silly. I'm fairly sure someone typing in "Sweedn" when searching for Sweden does so by accident (swapping the place of d and the second e) rather than intentionally, and that's not really what redirects are for. Ypsilon (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 23:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by A Sulaiman Z

I've just had to delete two articles by A Sulaiman Z (talk · contribs) as AI-generated (see their talk page). Even if gptzero.me was somehow wrong (which is unlikely; it often misreads AI text as human but very rarely the other way), I'm almost certain it is AI-generated due to the rather oddly formatted bullet points (which both Gemini and ChatGPT use) as well as how vague some sections are. I do not trust that these articles can be relied upon and I'd rather them all nuked and started fresh without any AI involvement. //shb (t | c | m) 09:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All articles in question:
//shb (t | c | m) 09:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More articles:
//shb (t | c | m) 09:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:A Sulaiman Z, please post a reply addressing this question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I recently cleaned up some technical issues with some of these articles, and also suspected this. Given AI's tendency to hallucinate regarding places or events that don't already have an online presence, I suspect much of the content in the above articles is false. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also just checked part of Tafawa Balewa against an AI checker, and it came back as 99% chance of being AI-generated and gave specific examples from the text. These align with my own reservations about the article. I don't want to note the reasons here as doing so could enable anyone who reads this thread to attempt to circumvent detection. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of two minds about this. I recognize the problems created for Wikivoyage by excessive use of AI, but at the same time, Wikivoyage has a problem with a lack of coverage of African destinations. It would be unfortunate to lose so much African content all at once. Perhaps A Sulaiman Z could agree to re-write these articles to remove the AI content. Ground Zero (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Ground Zero@Ikan Kekek@SHB2000@SelfieCity
    Thank you for your message. I fully understand your concerns and I am not arguing against what you have said. My intention was only to contribute, but if my articles do not meet the community’s standards, I accept that.
    If the issues cannot be addressed through improvements, then please feel free to do whatever is appropriate, whether that is deletion or rewriting. I respect the decision of the community and I will learn from this experience to improve my future contributions.
    Best wishes to you all. A Sulaiman Z (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for heaven's sake, why, why, why... Can you not use AI once, or is that in your too hard basket? //shb (t | c | m) 12:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @A Sulaiman Z: Maybe you don't feel that you can write fluently in English, and are using AI because its responses are grammatically correct.
    I want to reassure you — I looked at some of your older contributions on Wikipedia that didn't use AI tools, and your English is fine and you've also clearly done great work for the wiki community over there.
    Where there are grammatical issues with your writing, we can help you. There's no need to use AI. If you can respond below in your own words, and explain your position honestly, please do — we wouldn't want to lose your contributions in a region that is underrepresented on the site. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @SelfieCity,
    As you observed this on my Wikipedia contributions and other Wikimedia projects contributions, you have to judge me positively or base on positive side not only my negative side. A Sulaiman Z (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @A Sulaiman Z: I saw your article on Ningi and yes, it is a big improvement. If you can start rewriting the articles listed above in your own words, that would be terrific. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said earlier I'm not arguing whatever you discussed above here and I accepted whatever you decided, so you can either delete and rewrite new ones or improve an existing ones. A Sulaiman Z (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, and appreciate your response. Maybe you can start by redrafting one of the articles you've written in your words? I'd be happy to review it for grammar and spelling. I would also recommend choosing a town or province you know well, so you can add specific listings for hotels and other businesses. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With 2 weeks having passed, what does everyone still think about these articles? //shb (t | c | m) 00:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:A Sulaiman Z, please tell us what your plans and time frame are. If you don't have plans to rewrite the articles soon, I guess we will have to delete them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed – now normally the policy is to keep if there's no strong consensus, but I think an exception should be made for anything related to copyright and/or AI. //shb (t | c | m) 23:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the only contributor who has direct knowledge with the subject matter, A Sulaiman Z, has not indicated any willingness to try to save these articles. If we don't get a positive response soon, I would support deleting the articles. Ground Zero (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is no response by tomorrow, I guess we delete? //shb (t | c | m) 23:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know he's since written a couple articles without using AI — those should not be deleted. Only those that used AI. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given no response in more than a month and a general consensus leaning slightly towards delete over keep, I've deleted them accordingly. //shb (t | c | m) 11:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City centers

This travel topic was started a year ago, and nothing has happened with it. As discussed on the article's talk page, it is overly broad and unmaintainable. Every city has a centre. Ground Zero (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 00:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ip

Another cross-namespace redirect. I've replaced all uses of this link with one in the projectspace equivalent (except on three pages – two in userspace, and the other one where the cross-namespace redirect was the subject of the comment). //shb (t | c | m) 00:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to redirect to Crișana. //shb (t | c | m) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]