Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
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

July 2014[edit]


I'm going to significantly work on Taxila guide and hoping to bringing it up to guide status in upcoming weeks but I would like to start from scratch as most of the material has been simply copy-pasted into this article from Wikipedia. I've started my draft at User:Saqib/Taxila. --Saqib (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

*Keep. This article has a history going back to 23 December 2006‎. I'd suggest that you go ahead and continue with your draft, substituting at will whenever you are ready, but that the article stay up as is in the meantime. [Edit: See discussion below - I'm willing to countenance deletion under specific conditions.] Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure but as I said I'll need couple of weeks to complete the article so during that time, what if someone contributed to this one in main namespace. Don't you think it will make difficulty in later merging that newly added material to this article into my draft? To clarify my RfD, once this article get deleted, I'll eventually move my draft into main namespace. --Saqib (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth dropping some sort of template or {{notice}} on the article to point to the draft, much like w:template:construction or w:template:in use indicate something is in the process of being rewritten? K7L (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pashley (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, and develop the draft in your user space. Once it's more or less ready to go into mainspace, we can decide if it's reasonable to delete the old version and post your draft as a brand new article. I'd be okay with that in principle, since all major contributions are pre-move and mostly from Wikipedia anyway. However, you'll have to make sure to not use the current article at all. A template should help, indeed. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about keeping this article, as others seem to enthusiastically want to do. Keep in mind we're dealing with a copyvio here - regardless of the fact that the source of the information is one of our sister projects, it's not properly sourced per the CC license. I think that's a pretty tough argument to get around. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sure, an important part of the article has been improperly attributed - but it was attributed, probably in good faith and in a way that was quite common on Wikipedia itself for a long time. Easy enough to fix (I will, for now), but of course we prefer original content, so rewriting and replacing seems a good idea. However, a substantial part was not copied, and considering the effort to attribute, I do think "copyvio" is a rather harsh judgement. There's no harm in leaving the old article up while Saqib works on the new one. Everyone satisfied :-) (But I can't say I'll mind much if we delete it now either). JuliasTravels (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than simply giving attribution, we should completely remove the material in Understand section. I remember IK once said me that copy pasting content from other websites including Wikipedia lower the search results for our articles. I'm planning to travel to Taxila very soon (as part of my journey across Pakistan) and I'm pretty sure that I'll able to bring my draft up-to guide status thereafter but as of now, I also do thinks that my draft is a lot better (though mine was is not complete or even not near usable yet) than current copy in main namespace. Anyways, I would still suggest you guys to please consider moving my draft into main NS. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like to move your draft into the article, why don't you go ahead and do so? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure but majority of votes above clearly says to keep the current copy. I can go ahead, delete the current copy and replace it with my draft but I just don't want to get into any conflict. --Saqib (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, Ikan is proposing that you merge the text of your draft into the article without deleting it first. Most of the commenters above objected to deleting and then recreating it. What Ikan is proposing essentially does not amount to anything more than simply editing the article. You don't need permission for that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But I'm not in favour of it. If I'm getting it correct, IK and Julias have stated above that once my draft is ready or nearly ready, we can delete the current copy in main NS and move my draft into main NS and as I said above "I do thinks that my draft is a lot better (though is not yet completed) than current copy in main namespace" and I think I'm it is almost ready to go live. I don't understand why IK now suggesting me to incorporate my draft text into existing copy. --Saqib (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You can do anything you think best, up to and including substituting your entire draft for the current article. All I object to is deleting the article, and thereby deleting the article's editing history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, keep if only so we keep the attribution & history. I see no reason to consider deleting the current article. I do think your draft is better and large chunks of current text should be replaced; I'd say we could start that process now but if you want a bit longer to work on it in user space that is OK too. Pashley (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
For an earlier example of copyvio text being replaced, see Talk:Silk_Road#Early_discussion. That rewrite was done in 2006 but article history still goes back to 2004; we did not delete the article, just replaced the text. Pashley (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's arguably fine to delete and replace a new article that's purely copied from Wikipedia, but one with such a long history should not be considered for deletion and replacement, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Strange! after reading above comments, now I realised there was actually no reason to start an article from scratch in my user namespace if now we're not going to delete the existing copy. I could had simply start editing the existing one if I knew the conclusions and it would have been a lot much better. But anyways, can we at-least now merge both the articles rather than simply doing a copy-paste so that Pashley will be credited too in the history since he've made contributions to my draft. --Saqib (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible. Delete the existing article and move yours into its place. At that point, it's possible to undelete any old revisions you want to keep - effectively merging them into the edit history of the new article. A couple of caveats: keeping the old revisions raises attribution issues (including that pesky "contains content from other websites" footer that we really want to lose from an SEO standpoint) and, once merged, the two article histories are rather awkward to pull back apart if you want or need to undo this for any reason. Certainly, though, this is valid as WP admins use this approach to repair copy-paste moves. K7L (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And I'm trying to get rid of that annoying footer but can't argue since the community is clearly in favour of keeping it. --Saqib (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In Favor of deleting and replacing with a new version as an effort to determine if it affects our search engine results. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it will no doubt affect our search engine results. Taxila is the most visited and important site of Pakistan and having an article on it without WT footer will give us pretty good SEO. Many people may able to use our guide. On a related note: I created Mohenjo-daro from scratch last year with no WT footer and so far the article got 10,000+ page hits whereas biggest cities of Pakistan (Lahore and Islamabad) both still have less than 6,500 page hits just because they've WT footer. I think we should delete antique articles (where possible) for the sake of better SEO. --Saqib (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the old version of the article and replace by a new version prepared by Saqib and Pashley (by moving it). The content is completely new (and better and, I believe Saqib will keep improving it), so no reason to keep the WT footer. Danapit (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dana. Ikan Kekek, on English Wikipedia, two among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is article age and number of editors involved. Other than that, on many occasions, articles repeatedly created and deleted on English Wikipedia, even featured articles I've been told. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, you referenced arguments about notability. We don't deal with such arguments on this site, so the fact that the age of an article is no proof that its subject is notable is not relevant to our deliberations.
I would prefer for the article history to exist somewhere, though I understand the point of eliminating the attribution notice at the bottom of the page, and if others think it's totally alright to eliminate 8 years worth of history and delete the article, I won't stand in the way. However, I would like an explanation of when and why it's OK to do this, before any deletion takes place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I maybe wrong with my referenced argument. I don't understand what do you mean by "why it's OK to do this before any deletion takes place". Btw. If you really want to keep the article history, one compromise would be to rename the current copy in the main NS to Taxila (Pakistan), delete the redirect, rename my draft to Taxila and redirect Taxila (Pakistan) to Taxila. In this which we can keep the 8 years worth of history of Taxila. --Saqib (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. Will that work for SEO? I've edited my previous post, so that it's at least a bit easier to understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for co-operation and yes I'm pretty much sure it will work for SEO purpose. Now back to your question, I'm not in hurry to make move since this one is not a speedy deletion candidate. I prefer to keep open this discussion for 2 weeks as we do usually with VfD's but as I said above what if someone contributed to article in main namespace, their edits will go hidden somewhere behind a redirect. Also in the meantime, I request you to either strike your "keep" vote or change it to "delete" for record. I will continue to develop my draft and ask everyone to make edits directly to it. --Saqib (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me, Saqib, I'd like to be cautious. I'm willing to support a form of deletion that maintains the article history, providing that there is a consensus that agrees to this. So I'll strike out "Keep" above, but I want everyone to understand, as you do, that I am not giving blanket support for a simple deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The solution you suggested with keeping the history is an ideal one, I find. Danapit (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I view this as a one off to see if it changes readership. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I find Saqib's compromise — "rename the current copy in the main NS to Taxila (Pakistan), delete the redirect, rename my draft to Taxila and redirect Taxila (Pakistan) to Taxila" — acceptable. To me, deleting the current article and losing the history is not acceptable, whether or not we then manually restore parts of the history. Pashley (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be unnecessary, and could result in the retention of the "this content was copied" notice. I think it might be better to archive the current article to Talk:Taxila/Old version or something similar (not in the main namespace) in order to retain the history. Powers (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Seems like a good way to meet everyone's concerns. The footer shouldn't have that much influence on SEO without the direct links to WT, as long as the content is completely rewritten from scratch, but I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of allowing users who want to do a full rewrite of a low-quality article to get rid of the footer saying it is "copied". So Archive and replace. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Fails the basic "can you sleep here" test. Appears to be a day trip destination that could be added to another article. --Tbennert (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep or Redirect. First of all, "can you sleep here" doesn't mean "if there are no accommodations, we can't have an article". It means "is it a community, the type of place where you might expect to find a room, or is it an attraction, where you visit and then go somewhere else to sleep?" Second of all, it's a real place, and we never delete those. Always redirect real places. Powers (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
For future reference, where do I bring up a merge/redirect when the talk page does not seem to be appropriate? If it were obvious I would merge/redirect without discussion. I do understand "can you sleep here" and was using that as a quick way of saying "there are some super awesome pyramids at this spot and nothing else so I don't know what to do with eat,buy,sleep etc. because it's clearly not the same as a museum, etc." and this would fall into attraction. If I have been mistaken and should bring this article to a different page, I would appreciate the guidance.--Tbennert (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If you can't get a response to a merge discussion on the talk: page, post a link to that discussion on Wikivoyage:Requests for comment or Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub so it'll be seen? K7L (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and perhaps redirect to Saqqara. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge as Saqqara and Dahshur, redirecting both source titles, if there isn't enough content to justify two separate pages. If we want to keep the text, we need to keep the edit history for attribution, even if this looks to be some sort of questionable pyramid scheme. In general, "can you sleep there" does not preclude an article on anything from national parks to ghost towns if they're city-sized in complexity but not part of some larger community which has (or qualifies for) a city page. K7L (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. An archaeological site with "several very large pyramids" seems to me to be more than enough to carry its own article. We need to beware of overmerging, especially as a lazy alternative to expanding short articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Saqqara and Dahshur, per User:K7L. Even if this were changed into a park article, I believe most of the sections (Do/Buy/Eat/Drink/Sleep) would remain pretty useless; it doesn't appear to be a very complex site like Angkor, so I'm not convinced it needs its own article. Texugo (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Saqqara. It is "just" a sight and not that far away. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Saqqara. --Globe-trotter (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)