Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

From Wikivoyage
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.


  1. 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.
  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]

  • 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

Natural wonders of India[edit]

Where does this kind of list end? More importantly, though, see here. All of the places listed there are also found in the Natural wonders of India article. Copyvio, or at least something similar to it? Or the text, "Monsoon brings the Sea of Milk or the magnificent Dudhsagar Waterfall from the high peaks of the Western Ghats. Dudhsagar Falls is listed among the top 10 highest water falls in India and one of the most beautiful in the world", which is exactly the same in both articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, compare these two ungrammatical sentences - one from the external link you gave and the other from the Wikivoyage artice:
The Root Bridges of Cherrapunji are also known as Double Decker Living Root Bridge are made from the roots of the Ficus elastica tree, located in the Indian state Meghalaya.
The Root Bridges of Cherrapunji are also known as Double Decker Living Root Bridge was made from the roots of the Ficus elastica tree.
The next attraction alphabetically looks very slightly edited from the source:
The third largest crater which is two kilometer in radius and about 100 meter deep is located near Mehkar in Buldana of Maharashtra. Lonar crater lake is the world’s oldest meteoric crater and the only one formed in basalt rock.
The third largest crater with a two kilometer radius and approximately 100 meter deep. It is perhaps the world’s oldest meteoric crater and one formed in basalt rock.
I think the case for deletion due to copyvio is strong. But the counter-argument is that this is a list of 53 attractions, not 10, so maybe it would be reasonable to demand a thorough edit of the attractions in common to any source and this article, the removal of excessive images, and the keep the article. It would be a lot of work to go to waste, and it seems like a very valid travel topic, as I could easily imagine people building itineraries around visits to some of these attractions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It's possible, though, that the 43 other items on the list are also copyvios, from other, unacknowledged sources; when I did a web search for some of the content, I saw text that was very similar to other text on Wikipedia, although I think that was from the list of 10 (maybe WP has a copyvio as well!). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing a couple of copyvios from other, unacknowledged sources in this edit. They're not exact matches, but definitely close, on the descriptions.
You can get a good idea of what I mean here or here. It is, of course, possible that the copyvio is reverse — the WV article was written first, and people have copied from it. That's something I'm not sure about. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
If others are copyvios, then the article absolutely must be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree that if the article is full of various copyvios, as it seems, a speedy delete would probably be the best solution. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed possible the plagiarism went the other way, but probably not where there's non-standard grammar more typical of Indian English. I seriously doubt Matroc would ever plagiarize. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that as well, and I'm surprised that there would seem to be any plagiarism under the name of a long-term, trusted Wikivoyage user. I'm not sure what the explanation is, but further research may be necessary on my part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not await Matroc's input? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict — sorry that it goes exactly against what you are advising, I did not intend that) Looking back, I found this earlier and I was surprised by it. The edit on the left was the edit that created the page. Then, text was removed, for a reason. It seems strange that you would write an article including information that is negative about a place, and then hours later remove that content. The only reason I'd ever do that is if I copied something from a source and then found some text I didn't agree with. Sorry to put anyone under any suspicion here, especially a trusted contributor, but we have to look at everything.

Also, the contributors to the article (I get this by looking at article history) are: me (today), you (in November), ShakespeareFan00, Traveler100, T100's bot, DaGizza, Nurg, and Matroc. All trusted contributors. Strange. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the article is worth keeping... I will be glad to go ahead and rewrite/reword/simplify each of the descriptions if that would resolve any issues one may have. -- Matroc (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Matroc, I think you should address the issue squarely. Did you copy and paste from one or more sites, sometimes with very slight paraphrasing? Because if you did, that would have violated Wikivoyage:Copyleft and require the article to be deleted. Do you know whether any of the listings are not plagiarized from somewhere? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Squarely, I did read various sources and basically all had virtually the same text. If I remember correctly (from over two years ago) I probably did alter the text I read and not just paste and copy. Not as an excuse, but there are just so many ways one can say "xyz is the largest waterfall in India" is there? I just rewrote all the descriptions on my desktop but that is neither here nor there. I won't argue if you want to go ahead and delete the page for whatever reason. Thanks to all, best wishes for the future -- Matroc (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are many ways to write that, and express it more specifically. "xyz is the waterfall with the greatest drop in India", "xyz is the waterfall with the highest volume of water in India" (not the same thing), "It is at xyz waterfall where you can see the most drastic drop in all of India" "If you want to see the most dramatic waterfall in India, go to xyz, where the water plunges x-number of metres, the most extreme distance of any Indian waterfall", etc., etc. When I used to be a writing tutor, I often referred clients to this page at Purdue Online Writing Lab and similar pages, so they could learn the difference between good paraphrasing and plagiarism. I humbly suggest you look at that page. Meanwhile, I think the solution for this problem may be for you to copy this article to your userspace and work on summarizing and paraphrasing without a bunch of exact or poorly paraphrased phrases and sentences you got from some other source (especially one that no-one is free to copy at will, even with credit). Then, we can delete the article and you can recreate a clean article that's truly in your own words and also gives credit to your sources in your first edit summary.
Does this seem like a good solution to all of you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I think we should check the re-written version to make sure there is still no instance where it is very similar to the original text. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Copied page to Sandbox/Natural wonders of India and edited descriptions.. Will be rechecking page again and thanks for Perdue page link ... Should you look at that page - please leave any notes on its talk page for further improvements that should be made -- Unfortunately, I am not a writer. Also on the original talk page I did note where I looked for information etc. Thanks -- Matroc (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

All the pages listed Category:Gallery_pages[edit]

There are only three of them. People can find these pictures at Wikimedia Commons if they want; these pages do not seem to match our goals. Two of them were created in 2009-2010 by the same user, and the other one was created in 2016. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I hope we hear from people more involved in the diving articles, but I'd vote to delete on the same basis as you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Coral Gardens (Rooi-els)/Gallery and Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle/Gallery. These are appendices to a star and a guide article. I think that they are a useful addition to the article, and at the time the minimal use of image policy would have deterred putting these in the article. Longer term they could be merged in to the articles, but there is no hurry for that. AlasdairW (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with AlasdairW's assessemnt and recommendation. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember now taking part in a discussion about this with Peter Southwood. I agree that these could simply be galleries on Commons, but I can respect that this is how the diving community wants to structure diving guides. I think it's perfectly OK for there to be differences in how articles designed for different audiences are structured. So I'll be neutral in this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree—the two diving galleries don't seem to be doing any harm, so I'm happy to defer to editors who work on diving articles.
As for the St. Louis/Mississippi gallery, it might be better to redirect it to St. Louis#See, and include the images in listing templates. Alternatively it could possibly be expanded into a travel topic or itinerary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that very few, if any, pages listed at VFD do any harm. But VFD is still used to delete articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The St. Louis gallery should absolutely be deleted. There's no good reason to keep it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd say a significant fraction of pages that are deleted were doing harm, by misleading or distracting readers without offering much value. In any case, I'm not saying "They do no harm, so let's keep them"; I'm saying "They do no harm, so let's let the people who edit in this area make the judgement call". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see. That makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense in terms of St. Louis. Galleries are for Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe Granger was referring to the diving galleries, not the St. Louis one, but I may be wrong. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, that's what I meant. For St. Louis, I think merging or deletion makes sense, unless someone wants to expand it into an itinerary article or something similar. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
And when you say "let's let the people who edit in this area make the judgment call", you mean people who know about diving, you don't mean people who live in the St. Louis area. That may be what IK thought you meant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I was just clarifying. I think the result of these noms is clear: Delete the St. Louis gallery unless someone wants to put it in their userspace and keep the other two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. We should wait out the 2 weeks though, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
It could be moved to Commons, where galleries are in scope. Is it better than Commons:Category:Bridges over the Mississippi River at St. Louis or what could easily be done using the subcategories? At least these images seem to be well documented and valuable. I added them to that category and its subcategories, they were uncategorised before. --LPfi (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)