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, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone.

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 ("~~~~").

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 (UTC)
* '''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

November 2021[edit]


What is the point of this it was created by an admin in 2009 so it probably served a purpose at one point but I’m unsure why this would ever be used as this is a non-profit. An ip has been pasting this into many user pages also. Can I speedy if there is no current. Tai123.123 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (I cannot reiterate this enough). When a user is blocked and they try to edit, this notice comes up (based on tests I've done). Pages in the Mediawiki namespace should never be deleted unless there's a compelling reason for doing so. And x-wiki vandals/LTAs aren't a reason for doing so. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, I want sure if it had a use. Why are the dollar signs there though. Also it should probably be moved out of main space. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a technical aspect of the MediaWiki namespace (it's not in the mainspace). Usually, it's replaced with the necessary info so $1 would be the name of the blocking admin, $2 would be the reason, $3 is the IP address of the user/IP that's blocked etc. It's not in mainspace though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you. Also should it be moved out of main space. Tai123.123 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not in mainspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't in mainspace. If you paste it into the search bar it comes up Tai123.123 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Every page comes up in the search bar, including pages in the Special namespace (which we cannot change nor modify). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SHB2000. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When a MediaWiki page is deleted, the default version from the software is shown instead, and in this case they seem to be identical (see translatewiki:MediaWiki:Blockedtext/en). Only when we have project specific needs, or some improvement isn't done soon enough system-wide, one should have one locally. Things changed at some point (I don't remember details); it is very possible that the page was useful when it was created. –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with LPfi here, but should we check with the software maintainers first? If so, how? Pashley (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: But if we do ever need to edit it though, it would show the default, but we'd need to re-create it to edit it. And if it's not needed, I think it automatically gets deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recreating it is hardly an issue; only admins can edit it anyway. The problem is finding the right page and the meaning of the pre-set numbered parameters, but that should be handled by a help page in the Wikivoyage namespace, instead of copying every MediaWiki page to here. Pages don't get automatically deleted – unnecessary ones get deleted from the software, not from here. I am pretty sure it is safe to delete pages like this; we could check Wikipedia or MediaWiki instructions. –LPfi (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit summary when it was created ("fix link -- we don't keep an up to date list of admins outside of special:listadmins") it appears to have been created due to a problem with the standard message displaying the list of admins. It may be that was only an issue on the old servers, but that should be checked. AlasdairW (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! that difference remains, in addition to minor wording differences. The default page uses [[{{MediaWiki:Grouppage-sysop}}]] (Wikivoyage:Administrators) for the link on administrators, while our version uses Special:Listadmins. The default also uses {{int:emailuser}} (Email this user) instead of "email this user". I don't know whether it is worse to direct a blocked user to a page on administrators instead of the list of administrators. If we are to keep it, we should think about what we rally want to tell. Writing on one's talk page isn't mentioned as an option, so most blocked users would need to register an e-mail address to be able to contact any of us. –LPfi (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should create some page such as "Help! I've been blocked" or something similar to that, similar to what Wikipedia does giving advice for blocked users to contact an admin. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching, it seems MediaWiki default automatically deletes them if needed. I guess this wasn't one of them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We want blocked users to contact us because? The answer is, don't block their user talk page unless they are spambots, vandalism-only accounts or advertising-only accounts or otherwise permanently banned, and let them appeal on their user talk page if they like. Admins do not unilaterally unblock users because of private communications from them, and I would oppose allowing that in any way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the current nor the default text says anything about using the talk page. Time for a rewrite? I agree that spamming admins by e-mail is not something we want to encourage. –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, and some like me have disabled emails from newbies globally (and most of those that get blocked are not autoconfirmed). We could also have an "unblock" template, similar to {{blocked}} except the opposite, which populates a category somewhat like what Wikipedia does. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now rewrote the message. Did I get it right? If we want such a different message, then the local message should obviously be kept. –LPfi (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text is better, so I'm no longer sure I support deletion, but could someone please explain why we'd want to use this template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a template. This is the text that would appear if you're blocked and try to edit. If you want to see how it's used, test it on a test account. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I support retaining the page and will discuss details of the wording in its talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Banahaw[edit]

This is a listing, not an article. I have ensured that there are listings for the mountain in the towns around it, with a wikidata link, and a description using the paragraph from the article. This article is now redundant. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would vote to redirect if there were an obvious single city (or even region) to redirect to, but the mountain appears to straddle the boundary of several regions. Therefore, when people search the name, they'll be better off getting a list of articles that mention the mountain, rather than being sent to a particular page. Plus, if Wikipedia is up-to-date, the mountain has been closed to hikers since 2004 and is only accessible to pilgrims from the local area.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't been able to confirm that it is still closed. This blogger, who is Filipino, hiked it in 2019 and said that one trail was open. Ground Zero (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GZ says they added a listing description using the article. That means the article cannot be deleted, unless the listing text is also (if the description is above the threshold for copyright). Anyway, isn't this a possible search term, which should be redirected to the most relevant town? –LPfi (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the case, then move it to my userspace without a redirect if the article history is needed for attribution. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How would anybody find it in your user space? By a comment on the talk page, yes, but that is unnecessary clutter. And we should never assume user space is a safe place for anything, user pages can be deleted by author request or for whatever reasons, and admins will not check for attribution concerns when deleting them. And why do we need to delete the page in the first place? –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason to delete is TT's comment on where to redirect to. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep and redirect. We can redirect to the mountain listing in one suitable article and have the listing link other possible entry points. Perhaps we should redirect to Quezon (province), which says "Quezon Province's main draw is Mount Banahaw". If that's true, there is no problem to have a subsection in See describing the mountain and listing destinations that give a good view or can work as entry points (if hiking the mountain is allowed). –LPfi (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TT’s comment about the mountain’s location. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect – I think LPfi's suggestion of redirecting to a region article seems sensible enough. Or we could redirect somewhere else, but I think it's best to pick which article we want use to give an overview of how to visit the mountain, and redirect this page there, rather than deleting the page so readers aren't sure which search result to look at for information about visiting the mountain. On the other hand, if it's true that the mountain is no longer visitable then it would make sense to delete (and remove the listings for the mountain in nearby city articles). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listings in nearby city articles are See listings not Do/Hike listings. I do not think that there is any prohibition on looking at the mountain. We don't have any article that explains how to visit the mountain. I don't have a problem redirecting it to the region article. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia says:

The Lunigiana (pronounced [luniˈdʒaːna]) is a historical territory of Italy, which today falls within the provinces of Massa Carrara, Tuscany, and La Spezia, Liguria. Its borders derive from the ancient Roman settlement, later the medieval diocese of Luni, which no longer exists.

If that's the case, who's going to search this term up? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move it to 1 Bagnone Bagnone on Wikipedia and rewrite accordingly? That's where the banner comes from. Then we'd have an outline with Understand from Wikipedia, pagebanner and little else – but if we find a single restaurant and lodging in addition to sights mentioned in Wikipedia, then it fulfils our criteria on an article. Our article Massa-Carrara (province) just links to Massa, Carrara and this, while its banner seems to suggest something totally different from the two "cities". Do we want to cover all of the Italian provinces or just the most important cities and resorts? –LPfi (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with keeping this as an extraregion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boundaries that are not well-known mean more work in deciding what information belongs there, and even having the extraregion means more work: per definition any attractions in the extraregion should be added to articles in the normal hierarchy. And what is the use of this extra work, if nobody knows or searches for the extraregion? Extraregions are useful for regions that are common search terms, or that have a lot to be told about them that doesn't fit in elsewhere. Nobody has found inspiration to tell anything about this one in the 16 years of this article's existence. –LPfi (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, why does anything about the article need to be changed? Second, why do you think nobody knows about or searches for this term? If it's a really useless term, I suppose it could be redirected to the smallest region that includes the extraregion, just in case someone does search for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikivoyage should focus on being a travel guide. Obsolete historical terms like this term from the Roman era don't belong in a travel guide. Historical travel topic articles with relevant sites and museums make sense for a travel guide, but this isn't one of those. I think that this should be a matter of policy, so that we don't have amateur historians creating articles or redirects for historical terms like w:Lenapehoking or w:York, Upper Canada. These may do no harm, but they do no good in a travel guide. The "no harm" argument could also be used for nicknames like "the Big Apple", "the 6", "the Great White North", "Oz" or "Blighty". I don't think we should waste time on things like this. Ground Zero (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is the issue: Do we know that people don't use this term now? I don't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google gives 3.26 million hits. Keep. Pashley (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Yes, definitely keep if even, say, 1/20 of those results are searching for the region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict, slow writer). Weak keep. My initial thought was to delete. But I Googled the word and, to my surprise, got 2.5 million results. The first 10 results look travel-related, except for WP. And our article was among them, at #10. Also, we have articles in 3 other language versions – the Italian one is much longer, albeit mostly historical rather than travel info. And we are linked from the WP article. It is not pulling much traffic – extrapolating the pageviews for last 90 days (excluding today) I calc 45 views a year. But, I remember how hard we worked and how we struggled for the early years of En:WV on Wikimedia to get anywhere much in search engine rankings. The article has little value for direct travel purposes, but if the page was the entry point to WV for a few readers and they went on to view other pages, that's a good little result for the project. Nurg (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a side-note, when I look at Massa in English and Italian, I see that we haven't run out of things to write about yet. Nurg (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty terrible entry point to WV. Anyone thinking they will find information on Lunigiana here will find just this, and be disappointed. We shouldn't think that click-bait pages are going to draw in new readers. If there actual travel information here, it would work to WV's benefit, but this will just drive potential readers away.
The German and Chinese WV articles have even less, and the Italian one is just amateur history. The presence of those articles is not a good reason to keep this one. Ground Zero (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The map is clearly inadequate, but some disambig-type extra-region articles don't really need to be any longer than this. For example, Persian Gulf is only a bit longer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: I just removed the one "Sleep" listing from Massa, because the previously listed agro-tourism location is near Massa Marittima, which is very far from Massa and which we have no article for. See Talk:Massa for more on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep the article, we should write listings about some (three?) of the most important sites and create city articles with eat and sleep for those locations (one is enough if those sights are concentrated to one province). That'd make the extraregion usable. –LPfi (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems this term is not obsolete, but rather is still used to talk about travel: [1] [2] [3] [4]Granger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other sites may have travel articles about Lunigiana, but we don't have one. No-one seems interested in writing one, and no-one has done so in the last 16 years. We would be providing better information to the reader by redirecting this to Massa Carrara. Ground Zero (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so; I'm not sure whether an extraregion or a redirect is best. But it seems like a plausible search term, so we shouldn't delete it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a common search term and a region referred to in official tourism websites per above. Gizza (roam) 23:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Tagged for speedy by Sgroey which I declined. Reason given was:

here's very little info about this place online. There seems to be no tourist infrastructure. It seems to be a tiny hamlet. I edit a lot but have never seen an article about such a small, unknown location with so little concrete information available

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, delete after having a look at this place on a map, but it could be merged if there's a suitable article to merge into. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After further comments by Mx. Granger and Ground Zero, I now vote to keep. Sgroey, as you tagged this article for speedy deletion, like to comment? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, thanks for your comments. Its my first time nominating for deletion. After reading the other comments, I'm happy for this article to remain. There do seem to be some cool ruins around the area. I'll try editing to include these and make it read nicer. Sorry to waste your time, I'm happy to keep this article. Sgroey (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Traditionally we don't delete real places, and this article is reasonably well developed and seems to pass the "Sleep" test with three "Sleep" listings. Being a tiny hamlet is not a reason for deletion; see e.g. Childs. If there's not much information about the place online, so much the better – that means Wikivoyage is providing a useful service by giving readers travel information that they can't find elsewhere. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I am open to being convinced otherwise. This is far from being the least informative article we have. I have added some information since this was nominated, and deleted one inappropriate See listing. Ground Zero (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]