Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Vfd)
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for Deletion

This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy.

If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article.

The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page.


  1. For the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing it will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing, right at the very top, before everything else.
  2. Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article, file or template per entry.
  3. If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons.

The basic format for a deletion nomination is:

* Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~


All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not[edit]

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.


After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected.

See also:

Icon delete talk.svg

March 2014[edit]

From Istanbul to Cairo[edit]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Look at the Understand section. This is not a personal itinerary but a recognized route, and the article is at Usable status. The itinerary is not reasonable right now, as long as Syria is at war, but I see no compelling reason to delete the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe it is a single recognized route, but rather a recognized phenomenon that people have historically often passed between the two cities one way or another, which I don't think is really the same thing. If you look at the Go section, you can see that right from the beginning, no specific path is intended — it gives you like a dozen possible places to cross the Syrian border. Texugo (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I take your point but would then counter that neither is the Silk Road only one route, and fortunately, no-one is suggesting deleting that article. How does it serve the traveler to delete this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was taking the fact that this has already been tagged for merging for two years as enough of a sign that we'd decided this shouldn't be its own article and was nominating it here in an attempt to clean up things which had become permanent fixtures of Category:Not an article. Anyway, the Silk Road is a famous, historical, established collection of established routes in a way that this appears not to be. If there is a specific set of routes connoted here, we need to express them. If there is not, it just seems like we're telling people to "go by bus from Istanbul to the place of your choice in the next country, and then from there to somewhere in the next country, and then go by bus from wherever that is until you get to Cairo. That does not serve the traveller; it's just a waste of space. Texugo (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It's at least somewhat more specific than that. It gives several routes from Istanbul to Aleppo, but all of them start in Istanbul and go to Aleppo. After that, there is a series of listed, linked locations. It seems to me that it's sufficient to help someone plan a trip - when the war is over and the route is again reasonably safe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

[undent] Request for comments Hi, everyone. Please have a look at this article and give an opinion, lest it be deleted because there are only two people taking part in this discussion, and 50% in favor of deletion is sufficient to deny a consensus to keep. If a majority think this article is worthless, fine, but it would be a shame for an(other) article to be deleted because of the opposition of a single person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to having this route, but it needs a lot more details to be usable. How long does the itinerary take? As it is "not practical to pre-order bus or train tickets online", I think that the article needs to have full details e.g. "the #22 bus takes 6 hours and leaves at 9am and 2pm and costs ABC123". If it is to be kept, then it should be 'outline', and some warnings should be added. AlasdairW (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and get rid of the merge tag, since that is rather silly. It does need work. Any volunteers? Pashley (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We also have Cairo to Jerusalem by bus which is currently tagged for merging to Cairo. I'd say merge & redirect it to this article instead, and put links at Cairo#Go next and Jerusalem#Go next. Pashley (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

One day in Hong Kong[edit]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sights in this itinerary may be listed elsewhere, but Hong Kong is a huge city which is often visited for short stopovers. Why should a traveller have to spend half a day reading all our district articles, just to plan what to do on a one day stopover? This itinerary visits a good variety of Hong Kong sights, and is much more varied than most people would put together from reading our listings. It is only really lacking a map. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that people who have a 1 day stopover in Hong Kong would be simply too overwhelmed by the main Hong Kong article to get much meaningful out of their visit, and I see this article as a good way to address that. It does need a map however. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • After carefully looking at the policy again, I would say this has to be deleted. I feel that there probably should be a way to accommodate this kind of personal itinerary, although as it stands today there isn't. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps one of you could volunteer to have the article moved to your user space in case there is a determination to delete this article on the basis of policy. I should say that I don't feel impelled to take a pro or con position on this article, myself. It's a nice article and a Usable itinerary with nice photographs, so one could argue that an exception could be made for it, as in the case of Three days in Singapore, but I would observe that this is just one way you could spend a day in Hong Kong and, therefore, it is seemingly a personal itinerary, exactly as Texugo says. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am happy for this to be moved to my user space if the decision is to delete. I don't know when I will next have a stopover in Hong Kong (my last was in 2001), but I could make use of this itinerary when I do. If it is being kept, I hope to add a dynamic map. AlasdairW (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - this page might use more work (POI markers, map, etc.), but I find it very useful, as for all other large city articles where complete district articles is one thing, but guiding a casual tourist without weeks to explore every nook and cranny (and days to digest our filled-to-the-brim district guides) is another thing. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Walking around the Old Town in Warsaw[edit]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge? Unless I'm missing something, I don't see mentions of most of the specific sights within the Old Town in the Warsaw/Śródmieście article. I'd like a judgment to be made about whether this is useful content or not before we delete it. The description of the Old Town in the Warsaw/Śródmieście article suggests otherwise:
The Old Town (Stare Miasto). Warsaw's Old Town is charming, compact, very walkable and completely "fake" - it had to be reconstructed almost from scratch following the destruction in the Second World War. It is hardly apparent when you walk around today that the buildings around you are little more than 60, rather than 600, years old.
So maybe separate sights within the Old Town, which are mentioned in this itinerary, don't need to be mentioned in any guide on this site. But let's make a decision about this before deleting, and if we can't make a decision here, we should merge the sights as subsets of the Old Town listing and let discussions of their importance take place on the Warsaw/Śródmieście article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I may be wrong, but this might be something that got created during a bit of a conflict I had with User:Sapphire about whether to handle the Old Town better as a district (my view) or itinerary (his view). I think we essentially both left this as we grew tired of the conflict. In general, we should return to cleaning up the Warsaw stuff, but I guess I still fear conflict too much to give it a good go. I will treat this as an extra motivator. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I left this one here for the moment because though I think it should be deleted, I didn't have time to assess what if anything needs merging. The other one didn't have any keep/merge opinions expressed in its discussion, so it's gone. Texugo (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That is a shame, because I started working on the deleted article before it was deleted and added to it. Not that I cannot recreate my contributions. At any rate, some content (POIs) from the above article was merged (by me) with Warsaw/Old and New Town. Please consider if anything else (Get In, Stay Safe) needs merging. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan journeys[edit]

Another personal itinerary of the type which we are to avoid. It has long been tagged with {{merge}}, but there is not really much of anything to merge that isn't already covered in the main articles. Thus, there is no reason to keep this for attribution since nothing has been merged, and it's not a reasonable search term, so a redirect is not really appropriate.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. We also have an Overland to Tibet itinerary which I think is worth keeping, though it needs work. Perhaps parts of this could merge there. Pashley (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Overland to Tibet as appropriate and redirect. I agree with your reasoning, Pashley, but I see no downside to redirecting the search term even if it's not a really likely one. This article is too listy, but it does contain information that's worth merging. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect ϒpsilon (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not certain about the redirect. Does "Tibetan journeys" equate to "Overland to Tibet"? To me, it doesn't quite seem the same. They're about the same place, but are we certain that someone looking for "Tibetan journeys" definitely wants "Overland to Tibet"? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you have another suggestion on what to do with this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Since the name does not necessarily mean "Overland to Tibet" I guess I'd just delete this. There is nothing to merge, so we don't even have to worry about attribution. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that there's nothing to merge. A cursory inspection demonstrates that there are some place names in this article that aren't in "Overland to Tibet." So assuming that at least for the sake of argument, you can accept that there are things to merge, do you have a different possible solution than deleting this article (since deleting content based on the idea of an imperfect subject match doesn't seem logical to me)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I still hold my position that we should never create redirects for articles whose titles do not actually reference the place where we are redirecting in the manner in which the title implies. Tibetan Journeys simply implies travel through a part or some parts of Tibet, so if there must be a merge, I'd merge into Tibet, not Tibet Overland, because I feel that Tibet is as narrow as this article can possibly go. Even within the article it gives information about air travel, so clearly it's not meant as a strictly overland journey. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
What would you merge to Tibet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I should have said redirect. The redirect makes more sense to go to Tibet than Overland in Tibet. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion was that some of the text might go to the Overland article. I do not think a redirect is needed, but if we create one it should clearly be to the Tibet article. Pashley (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That's basically my suggestion, too. Some of the place names that are in this article should be able to fit into the Overland to Tibet article. If the redirect is to Tibet, instead, I don't care. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Singles travel[edit]

Mostly full of overly general Captain Obvious-style advice. Deletion was suggested months ago at Talk:Singles travel#Merge tag.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Pashley (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments: I don't mind a bit of "Captain Obvious" advice in a travel topic; it seems to me, that's in part why we have topics like Stay Safe, et al., so that the advice we don't want to clutter other articles is there. That said, this article is very undeveloped. I don't mind the topic, but unless someone wants to develop the article further, I'm kind of apathetic about whether it is kept or deleted, and I can see that it will be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Whoa! What happened to the "Stay Safe" topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I see, it's Stay safe. Is there a way to have different capitalization automatically redirect? For now, I'll create the redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
A search for the uncapitalized version of a title-case title will get there without a redirect existing; it's only links that cause a problem in that respect. Powers (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. That's a little strange, and I think I'd call it a bug. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as separate article (without merging) if only to keep this page's implicit assumption that "single" always equates to "single and looking" out of the main article on travelling alone. K7L (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
But K7L, keep with what valuable content? And keep waiting how long for that content to appear? It's already been a long time, well past the period we usually give for travel topics to be developed into something useful. If it's never going to become a truly useful guide, we need to get rid of it, not keep it as a semantic marker for contrast with the other article. Texugo (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Singles travel for previous discussion. There is certainly potential for a decent article on this as a travel topic, but no-one has every actually tried to create one. The original creator just touted some cruises, I fixed that but did little else & a few people have added bits, but no-one has seriously tried to develop it and there have been no substantive edits since 2011. Unless we have a volunteer now, delete. Pashley (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
K7L, maybe you'd like to have the article moved to your userspace, so that you can whip it into solid shape before it's put back into article space? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


ASEAN is an economic forum for south east Asia. It is not a region in any practical sense and there are no travel considerations at all between ASEAN members, nor will there likely be in the foreseeable future.

Keep. See previous discussion both on the article talk page and at Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#Index_articles.3F.
It does affect travel. The open skies aspect already has large effects on the cheap flights; SE Asia is one of the best areas on Earth for those.
The one-visa travel area like Schengen is coming; see ASEAN Single Visa and The Impact of Visa Facilitation. All but Myanmar already have visa-free travel for each other's citizens & Myanmar is expected to complete the process this year. They are working on a common visa for outsiders. Pashley (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The one-visa travel area is not coming. It is a very long term aspiration at best. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Southeast Asia. As discussed there, any effect on flight prices is far behind the scenes like many other economic organizations for which we do not have an article, and with regard to visas, even if there were a currently active program, we would cover it at Southeast Asia, just as the Schengen Agreement is covered in the Europe article instead of a separate article. This is a merely economic organization that is barely tangential to our scope and anything we might need to say about it can be covered succinctly at Southeast Asia#Understand. Texugo (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm still not certain that a redirect makes sense. Yes, the organization deals with Southeast Asia, but when we think about redirects, I think we also need to think about them from the standpoint of someone who types this into a search engine. For ASEAN, I see two scenarios:

1. The user is looking up information about the Association itself. That would be suited to a Wikipedia search and is outside of our scope. As such, a redirect to Southeast Asia would be a waste of the user's time. 2. The user is actually looking up information about ASEAN's affects on travel. In this case, we really need to make sure that our Southeast Asia article covers it sufficiently to warrant a redirect and I would suggest if we take Texugo's suggestion, the merge go directly to the Understand section (or to the ASEAN subheading if it had its own). Otherwise we run into the same issue as #1. We will annoy users by providing a redirect that does NOT actually have information (or satisfactory information) about the search topic. It'd be like redirecting NRA to United States or Songhai Empire to West Africa. Deceptive and aggravating for the user. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ASEAN is also a region. When I was in Malaysia, politicians and the media frequently talked about the ASEAN nations. Ignoring the possibility that someone on a travel website is searching for ASEAN in order to look at coverage of constituent nations (and, therefore, Southeast Asia) is kind of like assuming someone here who searches for the EU is looking for detailed coverage of EU politics or economics, rather than European nations that are EU members. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I was also considering those who might find us from search engines, because I'd say most people are not searching for travel info when they search for ASEAN in actuality. ASEAN is a regional association, but it's not a region itself. The EU is likewise not a region, nor the African Union. Someone might go to Southeast Asia, but they won't go to ASEAN. Point 1 aside, Point 2 is really where we are now, I think. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Point 2: I would be happy to see an ASEAN section in South East Asia itself. Technicalities around PNG not really belonging to South East Asia are somewhat moot considering that ASEAN has no travel implications yet. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
There is indeed an ASEAN region, as perceived as I recall in the region itself; however, that region is Southeast Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


A generic term meaning "border" in Spanish, this was originally conceived as a WV-coined name for the border region of the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, then created by someone with some warning info and subsequently redirected to the town of Reynosa. Tamaulipas is very far from needing further regionification, and in truth, it makes no more sense to redirect "Frontera" to Reynosa or Tamaulipas than it does to redirect it to any border town or state in any other Spanish-speaking country. Disambiguation also wouldn't make any more sense than it would for the term "border" in English, so...

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Pashley (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Disambiguate per Texugo's comment below. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there any place in the world, either a town or a province or region, that is formally known as "Frontera"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not know, but see w:Frontera and w:La Frontera, both disambig pages. It looks as though the term is rather widely used. Pashley (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok, yeah, if there are real placenames to disambiguate, we can do that. There are three small towns named "Frontera" and a number of them that contain the word somewhere in the name (See the Spanish WP disambig page under "Toponimos"). The only one we have an article for is Jerez de la Frontera. Texugo (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
w:Frontera Municipality, Coahuila, MX is population 70000 so not terribly small as a town. K7L (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, as essentially a district and integral part of Monclova, it's unlikely to ever need its own article, but that's neither here nor there. Texugo (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
In that case, this article looks like it should indeed be a disambig. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

East Somerset Railway[edit]

Ignoring a few maintenance edits, the contents of this outline itinerary have not been improved for a year.

  • Delete -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Texugo (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shepton Mallet. The article doesn't have enough content to be worth keeping, and its creator is now blocked. The railway is worth a one line listing, and just might be a search term. AlasdairW (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If it would be better to redirect, I'm all for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

South Devon Railway[edit]

Ignoring a few maintenance edits, the contents of this outline itinerary have not been improved for a year.

* Delete per above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine. In that case, redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bluebell Railway[edit]

Ignoring a few maintenance edits, the contents of this outline itinerary have not been improved for a year.

* Delete per above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we get one decent travel topic or itinerary by combining these railway articles? Pashley (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a long list at w:List of British heritage and private railways which I plan on going through at some point and adding listings for them to the relevant articles. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You may want to look at the small list in Rail travel in the United_Kingdom. AlasdairW (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Via de la Plata Route[edit]

Potential copyright violation; while it is properly sourced to this website a significant portion of it had been plagiarized wholesale from the same. On Wikipedia for example, it is one thing to formulate an original expression of an idea and source that idea from somewhere else, and another to copy the same expression wholesale; in copyright, this is the idea-expression dichotomy. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep if someone is willing to edit the article accordingly, otherwise delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Southern Upland Way[edit]

No significant improvements in content since import. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - Existing, established, signposted routes should likely be exempt from the one-year rule. Texugo (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I don't know about that, but the last significant edit was in August, so we're only at the 8-month mark anyway. Powers (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is an established waymarked route, with an official guidebook. AlasdairW (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


An experiment which has failed to gain consensus and has been sitting there now for over a year. Time to sweep it out.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There're plenty of better deletion candidates in Category:Experimental templates but I wish this template wouldn't be deleted until we have an outcome to discussions on the template's talk page especially regarding the proposal of flagged revisions feature. The idea of reviewing is also on Wikivoyage:Roadmap so deleting this template would also mean we'll have to delete the from the roadmap page as well. --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - The wider policy question of how to handle review of articles needs to be addressed first, and VfD is not the appropriate venue for that debate. K7L (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that this particular template has already failed to gain consensus. It's fine for us to go on discussing how to handle review/updating of articles, but it's been a full year since any attention was given to it, and with the unaddressed concerns expressed there, I don't think there is any chance of broad consensus congealing around this particular solution anyway. Texugo (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no consensus to use this template, so off it goes. Powers (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)