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.


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:

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. 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.


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

June 2020[edit]

Gladewater, TX[edit]

This article does cite its source as a reference but seems to copy verbatim from the source, which as I understand is a copyvio. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • We don't delete real places, but we do delete text that violates copyright. I have deleted the text and redirected to our existing article. Ground Zero (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What about revision deletions? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. Ground Zero (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we revision delete the edits including the copyvio? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Our copyright violation policy Wikivoyage:Copyright-related issues doesn't give us any guidance here. Deleting the edits seems to make sense, but it doesn't seem to be mandated. What do others think? Ground Zero (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't do any harm and it might do some good saving the WMF some bucks on legal fees defending our sorry rumps from a suit.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It makes me wonder if this should be built into policy, but after my last run at changing policy, I don't have the stomach for it. Ground Zero (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

[outdent] When an article has no content but a copyvio deleting (stating the reason) is the sensible action. Normally we keep the history because we merge the content into the redirect target. With copyvios we don't want to do that. If we want to merge something we should attribute the original source instead. But it is more complicated if there have been valuable edits since the copyvio content was added. In that situation keeping also the copyvio versions is more or less necessary to provide proper attribution and let later readers and editors understand how the article has evolved. My view is that copyvios in the history are no big problem – the history is more or less our internal working copies, and the source is elsewhere on the net, easy to copy from there instead. --LPfi (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We need to be very judicious with the use of revdel. In terms of copyright, I think continuing to identify and eliminate copyvio in our currently active content is the extent of what we need to do proactively. In cases where the owner of a particular piece of copyrighted content doesn't feel that approach goes far enough, litigation would rarely if ever be the first resort. We would first receive a cease and desist letter, which typically would give us a specified amount of time to scrub the content from the page history, at which point one of us (or, more likely, WMF Legal) could then revdel the offending diffs. But I think doing so in advance flies too much in the face of the principles of openness and transparency which are among the core values of the Wikimedia movement, especially in cases like LPfi describes where a particular diff contains not only copyvio but also useful content whose attribution we would need to preserve per the terms of the Creative Commons license we use. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
LPfi and AndreCarrotflower are making a lot sense here. Ground Zero (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have restored all but the first revision of the article for that reason, as that was the edit that inserted the copyvio. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
We routinely delete copyvio articles. Is anyone suggesting we should stop doing that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)