Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Wikivoyage: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, 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:

===[[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 (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 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.
  • When deleting a template, either replace it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name (especially if the use is in article space, you may then want to clean away unnecessary HTML or CSS code, which would make the wikitext confusing). Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it. Otherwise, remove the template from all pages that use the template. However, do not delete the template first – this breaks links and will cause a swathe of red links, requiring a lot of cleanups.

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:

March 2024[edit]

Billionaires' Social Calendar[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion in Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2023, but did not achieve consensus to delete. One of the reasons given was that it has been created in November 2022, and should be given a year to be developed. A year has passed, and it remains a random and arbitrary list of events, seemingly based on a single YouTube video. It is not an organized itinerary, or really a thing. It's just a made-up phrase used by a YouTuber. Ground Zero (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Park Sallandse Heuvelrug[edit]

Only a couple of sentences. Seems like all actual content can go in a parent article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused media[edit]

Putting these together, but please separate if you think these deserve different discussions:

Justin (koavf)TCM 09:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is labelled "temporary" by its creator, Saqib, who probably should have been pinged.
The two others cannot, according to their description, be uploaded to Commons because of Freedom of Panorama issues (images of non-free architecture). Our policy doesn't allow storing such images unless they are in use. Are these essential for some article?
For Bo Kaap, there is a process on changing the South African copyright law, which may make it legal. If I understand correctly, it is waiting for a presidential signature, but at the last round it was sent back to Parliament, so nothing is certain yet. Anyway, we might want to wait a few months and check for developments before deleting (it could then be moved to Commons). One could also argue for de minimis, threshold of originality or something, depending on the role of the architect(s) and legal tradition.
LPfi (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded to Commons, speedy denied[edit]

Listed here as it has somewhat distinct circumstances. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as DOTM banners are hosted locally. This is a rare circumstance where it is appropriate to upload such a file locally. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have some reason to think these media which are derived from photos on c: will be deleted there? And then that these files which are currently unused will also somehow be needed here after deletion? And that we can't just use the undelete request at c: and get a local copy if somehow needed? Deleting redundant files at c: is one of the speedy deletion criteria and it seems that would doubly apply for unused media. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, but that would require a change in DOTM practice since banners are almost always uploaded locally. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy exists because banners for past DotMs were repeatedly deleted without notice, leaving them blank in our archives. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy and like I wrote above would the undeletion policy not work for some reason? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage:Image policy#Local media. The undeletion procedure is a nuisance: the deletion itself may pass without notice and the image is then missing until somebody brings it up in the Pub or gets in touch with an admin at Commons, who may need some convincing before they undelete the image, and then you need to do the download and upload and adjust descriptions.
The Commons' policies should not allow the deletion in the first place, unless there are copyright problems, and even then we should be notified, but mistakes happen, seemingly too often. The Commons admins have a severe backlog.
Of course, undeleting them here is easier, if they are uploaded here in the first place.
LPfi (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but these are unused media. Has this been a problem where something that wasn't even used here got deleted on c: and it couldn't be undeleted and uploaded locally? I just don't even see the point. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]