Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
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).

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

February 2017[edit]

Amusement parks and water parks in eastern United States and Amusement parks and water parks in western United States[edit]

I couldn't find anything in policy that specifically disallows "list" articles of this type, but it's my understanding that by convention, Wikivoyage frowns on them. And in the case of these two articles in particular, this information seems to be simply redundant to what is or could be included in other articles. For instance, there's nothing spectacularly different about amusement parks in the Eastern or Western United States that's different from what would be in the Amusement parks travel topic article; the list of two three most-visited amusement parks at the beginning of the article is encyclopedic information that's more suited to Wikipedia; and the individual listings of parks that make up the main bodies of the article belong either in the respective destination articles, in their own articles in the case of the largest ones (Walt Disney World et al.), or alternatively 20-30 of the largest ones could be listed in Amusement parks#North America the same way parks in other continents are handled.

  • Merge listings where applicable. There doesn't seem to be any huge stretches of quotable text here or anything else that would need to be retained for attribution purposes, and these aren't likely search terms, so I don't see that keeping these as redirects is a necessity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - You're right about our common practice of not having list articles. I can't really judge how likely it is that people actually plan trips around amusement parks though, in which case this article with the map would have added value on top of listings in articles. Either way, if these articles will be deleted, the links on Wikipedia should also be deleted. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that there's a huge segment of travellers who plan trips where they hit up every amusement park in a given region - mostly because the bigger ones, like Walt Disney World, are big enough to require multiple days to truly experience, while the smaller ones aren't really worth going out of one's way for. An exception might be a real theme-park junkie who might check out Disney, SeaWorld, and Universal Studios while in Florida, but you could get all that information from the Orlando article anyway.
Of course, I might be wrong, and that's why I suggested the alternative of merging the most important ones as listings in Amusement parks#North America, much as we do already in Amusement parks#Europe and Amusement parks#Asia. From casual observation, if the author is down to listing such rinky-dink places as SkyZone Buffalo - basically an old warehouse full of trampolines out by the airport - then I think it's safe to say there's a lot of pruning that can be done. That's arguably an appropriate listing for Cheektowaga#Do, certainly not for an article that covers the entire eastern half of the U.S.
If the author or someone else is willing to add some real descriptions to the listings, and - more importantly - explain why U.S. amusement parks are so profoundly different from those in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, etc. that they need to be dealt with somewhere apart from their overseas counterparts, then I might be swayed to changing my opinion. As it is now, though, I'm not convinced that interminably long lists of some 200 naked bullet-point listings apiece, in the style of the Telstra vandal, qualifies as enough information to warrant U.S. theme parks being split off into even one separate article, let alone two.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I could very easily imagine a family basing a road trip on visiting every amusement park in a given area. However, that's a side point. These "articles" are merely long lists. Merge to destination articles as appropriate and redirect to Amusement parks, if we are going to keep that article, which is a bit listy, too, but not nearly so much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete outright, if allowed by policy. There is no need to keep this for "attribution", as we should check the listings that are not yet in the city articles regardless (some of them may have become outdated) and the article(s) contain nothing none obvious besides their listings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too encyclopedic for us. Powers (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Can we agree that before the article is deleted, the listings should be merged to other articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of them aren't really "listings", but we should check them against the city articles, regardless. And of course check against the websites whether those "listings" are up to date. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. Powers (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
So who is going to do it? anyone? --Saqib (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
If there's nothing substantial in this two guides that needs to be moved to other guides, lets close this AfD. --Saqib (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, there may be, but neither I nor anyone else seems to want to spend the time moving it to city guides. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]


Currently a redirect to Italian cuisine, but it could just as well point to Pizza in the United States and Canada and is likely to cause confusion and make the searchbox unwieldy or confusing when entering Pizz... I therefore suggest deletion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree --Traveler100 (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
One option is to disambiguate, as we do for boat travel. K7L (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I like the disambiguation page idea. Ground Zero (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
By far the better idea. It's entirely reasonable that someone would be searching for pizza, and not be looking for the North American variety. We could even turn it into a little joke, and lump Pisa in with the two legitimate article suggestions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose deletion It's a perfectly plausible search term. If you really are afraid that someone won't see "See also" on Italian cuisine, then make a hatnote at the top. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It may be a plausible search term, but not everybody searching for "pizza" may want to be redirected to Italian cuisine. After all, we have a whole article on North American Pizza. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, so the disambig page is the way to give people what they're looking for, short of creating a pizza article (which I don't advocate). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • DAB per K7L DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig - It's the most user-friendly solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with disambiguating pizza. Gizza (roam) 02:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Golf in England[edit]

See no merit of a redirect to Golf. I have added the courses mentioned to city articles. See no real reason why these specifically are singled out, appears to be left over from the old site. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

We also have Golf in China, Golf in Argentina and Golf in Australia if you ask me, they can all be deleted while the main Golf article needs severe cleaning up. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand we have lots of "Diving in ..." articles, e.g. Diving in the Philippines. What are the criteria for deciding when such a split is appropriate? Our usual rule is to put info into the main article initially, split out child articles only when there is enough material. Is that enough here? Pashley (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
If any of the country sections of the man Golf article get disproportionally large then they should be split into a child article. I am sure there is enough material to have articles for many locations but until someone creates it there is little point to having a stalled page. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, plus I think it is better to start from a clean slate if and when such becomes necessary. Another issue I raised at Talk:Golf is that the articles are imho too uncritical of the ecological impact. I take that golf developed with the specific flora, fauna and landscape of Scotland where golf courses are rather close to the way nature generally looks like, but you only need to look at the grotesque aerial pictures of golf courts in the middle of the desert to see that's not necessarily the case globally. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)