Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from VFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 deletion 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.

Nominating[edit]

Add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else.

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.

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:

===[[Chicken]]===
Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Commenting[edit]

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

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''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. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not[edit]

  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
  • If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above.
  • 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.
  • When deleting an article, check "What links here". Either remove the newly-broken links from the articles or point them somewhere else. Inbound redirects to a deleted page should either be deleted or redirected elsewhere.

Archiving[edit]

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).

When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion.

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

September 2020[edit]

Wikivoyage:Requested articles/Old requests[edit]

  • Delete. The entire point of Wikivoyage: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 Wikivoyage:Requested articles, never archived. I have been deleting no-longer-needed listings at Wikivoyage:Requested articles forever, as I believe have others, so Wikivoyage: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#Why do we even have this page? 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)

Lunca[edit]

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)
@LPfi: 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)