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. 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]

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

November 2015[edit]

Mustang Island[edit]

Created by an IP user and reeks of pcv Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is pcv, though it's certainly not impossible. At any rate, according to our already-existing article on Port Aransas, Mustang Island is a real place, so deleting this article is out of the question. I vote to redirect, either to Port Aransas or South Barrier Coast. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Fix or expand don't instant delete and discourage. And maybe advise a new user how to constructively contribute. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirected to Mustang Island State Park which was already a red link for the region. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I undid the above redirect as there was no consensus for what should be done with the nominee. Less than one hour of the prescribed 14-day discussion period had elapsed, during which we only had input from two editors. Please read the relevant policy at the top of this page rather than acting unilaterally. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that redirect is a good solution. Pashley (talk)
Maybe the debate is to whether it should have been nominated for deletion. It is a valid place just debatable its need for a specific article and the current content. I understand waiting 14 days to delete some debated page or content but why wait 14 days to fix a problem? --Traveler100 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "fix a problem". I didn't delete Mustang Island State Park - the only thing I undid is that Mustang Island doesn't redirect to it anymore - so the redlink on the region article is no longer an issue regardless. But if the "problem" you refer to is the Mustang Island stub itself, in its current VfD'ed state, then the answer is that Wikivoyage uses consensus to determine the best solution to problems like this, which is the entire point of this page and these nominations. If consensus weren't important to this process, then Hobbitschuster might just as well have fixed the problem himself instead of wasting his time nominating it here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Real places should be redirected. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
But where do you think it should be redirected to, Ypsi? I think that's the central question we're trying to answer here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe South Barrier Coast? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment; While a redirect is probably fine, I do want to point out that the way this is being handled is quite detrimental to our wishes to expand this community. Slapping a vfd-tag on a new article by a new user within hours, and even suggesting page creation vandalism, for an article that is 1) about a real place that 2) a red link in other articles, should very much be avoided. It would be far more constructive to start a discussion on the talk page and welcome the new user, which no-one did so far. If this had been the way my first (far from perfect but well-intended IP-) edits had been welcomed, I would have been gone for good in a heartbeat. (Fortunately, it was Ryan who told me I was going about it all wrong, without completely discouraging me - and still it took a while for me to come back after my first attempts, and I still remember the slap on the wrist ;-)) ) If this article is redirected, probably the same should be done for Padre Island, and the links to the article should be changed. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Julia is quite correct; we need to improve our ways of dealing with new users.
As for Padre Island, we currently have that plus Padre Island National Seashore & South Padre Island, none of them with much text. We really need only one article. Pashley (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry, I am a serial newbie biter, it would appear. Though the history of the page is decidedly weird... Maybe a copvio from the other side that was reverted? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Low-cost airlines in Africa[edit]

So this article has been sitting around for quite some time and seems to me to have failed in its original purpose. Given the fact that the market in Africa is even more volatile than elsewhere according to the article itself. I think there was a discussion over at Talk:Low-cost airlines in Europe to throw out the whole "low cost airlines" shtick (us not having articles on companies and stuff) but let's open that can of worms at some other time... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Change the scope of Flying to Africa and merge it there (and recycle the banner)? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Newport (Shropshire)[edit]

  • Talk to contributor - another case of experienced user possibly discouraging a new contributor? --Traveler100 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect. Policy is not to delete real places, which this is (w:Newport, Shropshire), so it should not have been nominated for deletion. If the contributor wants to flesh it out some, keep it. Otherwise, redirect to the region or the nearest sizable town. Pashley (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nothing was actually contributed. Just the template for the town was added with no content whatsoever. I'm sure people here would not be happy if I created a skeleton article for every 'real place' in China. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait and redirect or keep - No, we wouldn't be :-) And most likely, nothing more will happen to the article. Still, I agree with Traveler100 that it's best to be lenient with new editors, just in case. The difficulty is giving some time while not forgetting about such articles... perhaps we should have small list at the bottom of this page for pages that are not up for deletion, but still probably require some action after two weeks :) JuliasTravels (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I changed my mind. Looking a bit further, I think this place can have an article of its own, actually. I'll make a start. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I was thinking about the idea of a list of articles needing attention. Been guilty myself of tagging pages for deletion or merging too soon after creation. Was wondering if we should have a tag (template) with a category that highlights articles needing attention with some form of date system on it. Something we can tag when created but then revisit a few weeks later and reassess for delete/redirect/merge. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Something like this --Traveler100 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
A tag would be great, since it would remove the need for an impulsive deletion for empty articles that could potentially meet Wiaa criteria. I would change the template above to state that the article requires more general attention than just 'Sleep' and 'See'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It now has enough content to be worth keeping. AlasdairW (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)