Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Votes for deletion Shortcuts: WV:VFD vfd 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 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 hosted 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 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 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 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. First, describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion, with something like "archive as kept". Then add a line for the result to the discussion on the archive page. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then the nomination should be mentioned on its talk page. Generally this is done by providing a link to the deletion discussion on the talk page. One should also indicate the result on the talk page. If the discussion is short, an alternative is to place an (identical duplicate) copy of the discussion on the talk page. See also: Deletion log Votes for deletion/Archives - the VFD archives index page Votes for undeletion Category:Vfd - A page that collects every image and article that is currently tagged with the vfd template.

July 2026

Short Hills

Hi! Just currently making a page on Millburn, New Jersey. Short Hills is an unincorporated neighborhood of Millburn. PS please make the July section for this CrunchLabs (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Millburn. Short Hills is still what many locals call Millburn, so I feel like I can redirect it. We can keep Short Hills until the real Millburn page gets large enough to be an outline/usable article. CrunchLabs (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on what you've said I'd just redirect that. //shb (t | c | m) 03:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Ebibeyin, Mongomo and Mbini

This is a bit of a complex one. Both these articles were created by ThatEquatorialGuineaEditor (alt), who has been globally (b)locked for lock evasion (not block evasion, btw – the distinction is important here). Behaviorally and also technically (from CU results), it's very likely Te Reo Ahitereiria, but it's very hard to 100% confirm this with the data I was working with. I don't actually remember if Te Reo Ahitereiria's socks were ever locally blocked here, but they have a very large tendency to work on destinations they have no idea about, or abuse machine translations (such as their socks contributing to mgwiki, despite Madagascar having almost no geographic or linguistic connection to Equatorial Guinea, or translating enwikivoyage articles to pswikivoyage and fawikivoyage).

Given the lack of trustworthiness from this editor, I at the very least propose we start off by deleting these three articles. If they were evading a local block, I probably would've speedied them, but I'd prefer to go through the VfD process since this isn't a clear-cut case. //shb (t | c | m) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

All of this user's contributions have to be deleted. What language does ps stand for, by the way? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Pashto. If the information is unreliable also regarding Equatorial Guinea – which seems likely if they don't care regarding the other places – I assume they have to be deleted. –LPfi (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yep, ps is Pashto as LP mentioned. Only reason I'm starting with these three as I believe there's some articles this user started that have significantly been edited by others (at least from what I remember) – those ones I think can be kept. //shb (t | c | m) 10:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Those articles should not be kept unless the other editors were actually familiar with the places in question or looked stuff up, rather than copy editing, fixing links and so on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I added Wikidata numbers to three places in the Mongomo article. This information is thus verified, so I don't understand why it would be deleted. The other two articles do not have any verified information. Ground Zero (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, great. We can and should keep that article, then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Region name

A mysterious blue link from 2005 that redirects to WV:Region article template. Maybe delete as a cross-namespace redirect. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'm torn on this one. On one hand, it is a cross-wiki namespace and not one that's particularly useful, but on the other hand, it is the default text when you create a new article ("City name is in Region name"), and a redlink isn't a good look. //shb (t | c | m) 09:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  We also have redlinks like Country and Region, both deleted per VFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  In that instance, I'm leaning delete, though I'd want to hear more opinions too. //shb (t | c | m) 10:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing a good reason for deletion. It won't be confused with a real place. So how is it worthwhile to produce a huge amount of work cleaning up? Of course, no article should say "X is in Region name", but I'm still not seeing the advantage of deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  What's the clean up work you're envisaging? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, it would actually be beneficial to substitute the actual region name, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Dunno. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, so presumably any stray 'Region names' showing up as redlinks would stand out as needing to be changed sooner, preferably by the person who first made the error.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep. We have had this article for 20 years. By having Region name as a blue link, it is possible to find any newly created articles that need the region name completed using what links here, but this may be rarely used. AlasdairW (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems obvious to me. Far from "a red link is not a good look", it is exactly the perfect look when someone creates a new article without replacing this text. Pashley (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually yeah...I too change my !vote to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 00:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete a red link isn't a good look, and a redirect to a template isn't useful for readers. Let the red link draw our attention to the need for the link to be replaced. Ground Zero (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• OK, those of you who want to delete this redirect have convinced me. I won't stand in your way; your logic makes sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, per Pashley. And the "what links here" tool works on redlinks too. Gerode (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)