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.


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.

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:

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 (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 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

September 2021[edit]

Danube Cycleway[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Not the worst, but definitely not usable. Delete per above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. According to the article: "one of Europe's most popular long distance bicycle route, part of EuroVelo". I.e. not personal itinerary. –LPfi (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • OK, great. Who wants to add the information so that there's actually a defined route in the article that people can follow? Expecting people to go to an external link in order to be able to take a trip isn't the purpose of Wikivoyage; the information that's really needed has to be in the article. (And I'm replying to you, but this isn't personal to you but to everyone who wants to keep the article while it's in its current condition.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Unfortunately the commercial site does not describe the route, only the cities it passes, or at least I don't find that information on their site. Makes sense, of course, as on their tours you don't need to know how to find your way. The Danube Cycleway is part of Eurovelo route 6, Atlantic–Black Sea, linked from our article. One could try to go from there, but don't hold your breath for my doing it. Knowing German and Germany would probably help for the upper sections. –LPfi (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per LPfi. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Ikan Kekek, unless someone is willing to improve it. There have been no substantive improvements since 2013. We should not leave it in this state indefinitely. Ground Zero (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Lebanon Mountain Trail[edit]

Per the one year rule Tai123.123 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • It looks like a notable itinerary, but it would need a real article. Perhaps the existence of this trail could be mentioned in Lebanon#Do, but this article can't stand as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It appears to be a good idea for an itinerary, but unfortunately it's written like an advertisement, so it's not clear what content could be merged. I would support adding a mention of the trail to Lebanon#Do, but most of the content of this article shouldn't be kept. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete touting, and merge the remainder into Lebanon#Do. Ground Zero (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Merge and redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Bandit Run[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Not worthless. If anyone knows the Smokey and the Bandit movies, this could be made usable. Is this still an annual event, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That I would need to ask you that question as I've never heard of Smokey and the Bandit movies before. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. I don’t know anything about the movie, but the article has potential and I don’t see cause for deletion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per S City. Pashley (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Well defined and frequently re-enacted. /Yvwv (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The Golden Triangle (India)[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Is this really an itinerary? I feel like it's an extra-region and should remain in existence, with suitable edits, as an extra-region article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep The Golden Triangle is a well known itinerary for foreign tourists in India and often aimed at first time visitors so I feel it is iconic enough to keep despite being unedited for over a year, I’m against it being a region as there is a set start and end point (Delhi) and it is often done by train. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Also most luxury trains in India run this route Tai123.123 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hiking from Zakopane to Giewont[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Could be rescued, most importantly with a map and geo, but at this point, delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: I have added a map and geo-coordinates to this article. Fortunately OSM had a detailed map for this area. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Thank you. I still wouldn't call it usable (no "Get in"), but if you're already in Zakopane, I think you stand a decent chance of finding the trailhead, and then the itinerary is doable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don’t want to add those types of details because I wouldn’t be sure from the map as to the exact location of the trailhead. The map is good but it doesn’t give me the confidence of exact locations that visitor would have. However per my edits and this discussion I think the itinerary is now informative enough for me to also vote to keep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep This is popular hill to climb from Zakopane. I may have done part of this route 20 years ago. I will look at it in detail next month as I am travelling at the moment. AlasdairW (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Super! Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep for the time-being to give AlasdairW time to look at it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ban Nalan Trail[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Dunno, I hope this isn't just deleted. I think it could be turned into a usable article, but I don't think deletion is the other alternative. Instead, it can be moved with suitable edits to Luang Namtha#Do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep the ban Nalan trail can is a real itinerary and not personal and should be kept or could be added as a listing to Luang namtha though I feel it is kind enough to warrant its own article Tai123.123 (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. This is useful travel content, even if it isn’t complete. We have many incomplete articles we keep because others have information to contribute. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Pashley (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Landscapes from Palagia coast range[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Almost usable? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. No way we should be deleting this much information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Pashley (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. What does it need to be usable? Ground Zero (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The route is described in detail in prose, so it's in that sense a usable itinerary. It would be nice to see the route on the map. I'm not sure what else. This is probably usable now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

From Plymouth to Hampton Roads[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • It would be nice to salvage something from this, but the route is arbitrary, so I think we will have to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Ikan Kekek. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Ikan Kekek. It is a quite arbitrary with too broad a theme. Ground Zero (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment An arbitrary route makes this a personal itinerary, but it doesn't mean we have to delete it. Would somebody like to follow it if it were made usable? Would defining the route in more detail, improving on Understand and writing a Get in make this de facto usable? To me it seems to involves very much driving, too much for it being worthwhile with the current stops. Or would driving the itinerary be realistic, only some detail were added? –LPfi (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's the point about itineraries. If they are usable, we keep them. If they aren't usable within a year of creation, we don't. We don't keep an itinerary in the hope that someday someone will make it usable. This one has been around for six years. I've made several of the itineraries in this discussion usable because I think they are worth keeping. If you think this is worth keeping, then feel free to improve it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
What I said was that we don't need to delete an outline, if it has valuable content and there is a feasible path forward. If somebody can see such a path, somebody else can make the needed work – but in this case I don't see it and don't have the knowledge to follow it, and my time is better used on areas I know something about. –LPfi (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Then we agree. The discussion period for VfD gives those who believe an article can be made usable the time to do so. If it isn't done, then we should delete or merge, as appropriate, and move on to other work. Ground Zero (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Nidaros Path[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • What does this need to be usable, other than a map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It lacks the proper formatting for an itinerary per Template:Itinerary skeleton. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I think the formatting of itinerary articles is more fluid than that of other articles, but there's always some flexibility. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      This is more or less just the Understand. The various routes are not described enough to be followed. They would each need a list of intermediate destinations and descriptions on how to get between them. There is no Understand, and a "complete" Understand is required for usable, in addition to the list of stops. I'd like to have a good Prepare and at least some attractions along the routes pointed out, although that isn't formally required. –LPfi (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. The roads are historical pilgrim routes which can be described in detail. /Yvwv (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Official routes, not personal itinerary. –LPfi (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, though the route badly needs clarification. It needs to conform to the Wikivoyage:Itinerary article template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • As it is not one, but several itineraries, I think we should not force the normal template. Anything mentioned in the itinerary template should be there somewhere, but whether Prepare and Get in should be given individually or summarised in common sections depends on the differences. I suppose they could be given at the start as in the template, but I think also an intro for each route is needed. Those who know the routes should make the decisions – or just add enough information for others to determine. –LPfi (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Would reclassification as a travel topic make sense? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It could be a travel topic, but it is much more useful as an (assortment of) itineraries – only they were written. As of now, it is still useful for the general description, the pointers to other sources, and pointers to our articles on some of the places involved. –LPfi (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Southern Upland Way[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep. Seems barely usable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, definitely. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. As a waymarked government-backed route, I think this route is exempt from the one year rule. The article is also close to being usable. AlasdairW (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Manaslu Trek[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It seems to be usable or close to usable. What would be the benefit/reason to merge the information to Annapurna Circuit? I will support a merge if it makes sense from a traveler's perspective, but I don't see this as a stubby outline in its current form. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It could be made usable with the addition of a map and geo. It's currently merely linked under Manaslu in Annapurna#Other destinations, which is probably not the ideal way to handle it, because who would be looking for it under "Asia itineraries", its current breadcrumb path? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We could make it prominent, but isn’t breadcrumb under “[continent] itineraries” the normal procedure of itinerary categorization? I would support adding wikilinks if this is the best way to increase the Manaslu Trek article’s visibility. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It may be normal, but it's not where people are most likely to look for it. Merging may be the wrong idea, but is there a way to make this trek breadcrumb to Annapurna Circuit or Annapurna? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would think that’s easily done. Create a category for Annapurna Circuit and change “isPartOf” parameter of the Manaslu Trek to “Annapurna Circuit,” and within a few hours or days the category page will update. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think it would be good to do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Rama's journeys[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Although a good idea in principle, unfortunately this itinerary (topic?) has not developed into a suitable article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, per SelfieCity. Ground Zero (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I did not know that somebody had started this article. Itineraries based on mythology and epics have been on my mind for some time, not just the Ramayana but the Odyssey and others. I have no opinion on whether the current version should be kept or not because parts of it will have to be rewritten anyway. Gizza (roam) 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Mountains to Sound Greenway[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. Moreover, itineraries don't have a "do" section. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete: No clear route. Adding a "Do" section shouldn't be a deletion reason, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep since it is a real route, and "a designated National Scenic Byway". Pashley (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    But it still meets the one year criteria. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No-one is questioning that the route exists, but the article is not usable, so I don't see how it's useful to keep the article in its current form. We could merge some information and redirect the term to the relevant Washington region article, or someone could add a clear, usable definition of the route to this article, but just leaving it as is isn't much of a service to travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, but the article needs a rethink. Could it function better as an extraregion or travel topic? It lacks the identification of a clear route, perhaps because that's not the purpose of this article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Easy Rider[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. Although the understand section was expanded by Vaticidalprophet, still no extra travel info. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete: No route specified. Good topic, though, if someone wants to salvage it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak delete per Ikan Kekek. This isn't useful enough to be an itinerary or travel topic in its current form. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete It is more about the movie than about travel. IMDB does a better job of that sort of thing. Ground Zero (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would argue that this is in theory a route and is therefore ostensibly about travel. The issue is that no specific route is shown or explained, and that's why I support deletion at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I agree. By "It is more about the movie than about travel", I meant the article as it stands now. If someone who is interested in the subject writes a specific route, I'd be open to keeping it. This was before my time, though. Ground Zero (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. The route can be plotted down and re-enacted. I can have a look at it. / Yvwv (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Started work on the film sets. The film omits much of the route (all of Texas) so it can never be a complete itinerary. /Yvwv (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think there's enough here to keep now. Perhaps a route across Texas could be suggested or different possible routes could be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Maybe merge content somewhere and redirect? But as an article, it would need a clearly detailed route and map, so either merge as relevant and redirect somewhere or delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Merge to Sognefjorden, if that makes sense from a travel perspective. @Erik den yngre: thoughts? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Route and map are probably easy to fix, as the itinerary is along a certain road (and there are good online maps for Norway). The name is misleading, as Sognefjellet is the fell, not the pass, and people do visit the fell as a destination. I'd appreciate a comment from Erik den yngre. –LPfi (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Sognefjellet" is an appropriate name although some official documents may refer to "Sognefjellsveien" (just like Trollstigen is officially Trollstigveien but everybody says "Trollstigen"). The tourist route is called Sognefjellet. Sognefjellet (or more precisely the drive through the mt pass) is a distinct attraction so I am not sure if it should be merged. But there is very little content. One option is to create an article for road 55 similar to Road 63 (Norway), see Fylkesvei 55. Sognefjellet is partly in Lom district (Oppland county), partly in Luster, and runs along the perimeter of Jotunheimen - so if merge then should be mentioned in all of these. Erik den yngre (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PS: Visits in Norway (outside main cities) are often organized by drive or road number, rather than by a specific places (such as a village). We got articles on European route E39 and E6 through Sweden and Norway, which are itineraries (E6 is in fact a bit too long as a leisure trip!), whereas roads 63 and 55 are kind of destinations in themselves. Erik den yngre (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
To me, the option for a Road 55 article sounds the best. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Elbe Radweg[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete unless someone fills in the legs with descriptions and geo and a map is made. As is, it's unfinished work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. I suppose this is an established route. What is there could help those who want to expand it (perhaps planning to cycle it). –LPfi (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment as the translation box says, German Wikivoyage has a quite good guide (the route is divided into three subarticles) that could be translated. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep as there is the potential for translation in addition to a good start for the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: I suggest we revisit this article again in another year, if no-one has chosen to translate specifics about the route from the German article and delete at that time. The current map is quite clearly unusable for a cyclist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Though I have to point out, this article is 7 years old. We really want to keep it?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Erlian Grassland Tour Loop[edit]

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete if it remains as is: the starting point isn't even mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There is useful travel information here. Information about bus routes should be moved to the appropriate articles, and then the article can be deleted redirected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If information is merged from it, doesn't it have to be redirected to keep the article history viewable? I don't think "merge and delete" is ever supposed to be a thing on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, my mistake. Should be redirected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Alternatively you could give attribution to all the relevant authors on the talk page, but that's not advised. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I merged some info (substantially rewritten) into Erlian, but there wasn't much that I could salvage. The information was incomplete. I think this is a personal itinerary that won't be recognized by anyone else, so I vote Delete. Ground Zero (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We shouldn't delete for attribution purposes, unless we follow SHB's guidance. I think a redirect would be the best way to maintain attribution. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Since content was merged, we need to make the title a redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I added the information into Erlian, but did not use the original text. The original text was repetitive and kind of confusing. No need for attribution. It looks like the concept of a "Erlian Grassland Tour Loop" was entirely the author's creation, and not something that anyone is going to search for. Ground Zero (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If you didn't even paraphrase from any of the text, it would be OK to delete this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Somali Sea[edit]

Per Wikivoyage:Bodies of water, "we don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water". While someone could write an article about this as avtravel topic or an itinerary, this article isn't either of those. In an encyclopedic way, it just lists the countries around the Somsli Sea. Ground Zero (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "[]

Delete Tai123.123 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. While articles can be written about bodies of water, they have to be clearly travel articles, covering how to travel across that body of water. This is not a Wikivoyage-style article of any kind. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Also fails WV:SLEEPTHERE. Other than living on a boat, you don't have any place to stay and sleep. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. There are exceptions to the bodies of water rule, like Lake Tai, Lake Tahoe and Persian Gulf. I do not think this comes close to qualifying as an exception. Pashley (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Yeah... nah, this is not an encyclopedia. Unless someone is actually going to make this article travel related like all our other sport related articles, sadly, I see deletion is the only option. This isn't Wikipedia 2.0. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

For some assurance, I'm happy to withdraw this nom if it's worked on, but if it were the way it is in 13 days and 23 hours, it's currently OOS as travel topics still need to have some travel content in it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: When I have been trying to detout Rishikesh I have been hoping for some information on what information is relevant and what is only touty language ("accredited by X" – never heard). For that destination there is Yoga in Rishikesh, which indeed has places to visit listed, but no info on how to choose between them. I don't want another tout magnet by including destinations, unless there are some very clear criteria for them. The travel relation would come in the form of telling what to look for and what to look out for, when checking possible travel destinations.
    I don't know to what extent people going abroad to attend a yoga school need information on a level we are able to provide, but I would like a guide here, instead of having to try to distil the information from Wikipedia. Writing the article needs an author who knows or is ready to put time on studying the subject. If we don't have any, I suppose there is no use keeping the stub, but I hope the article could be written.
    LPfi (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I agree, but tend to think the current stubby thing should be deleted, otherwise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Currently, it's just not a travel article. It's not a good idea to keep articles that are travel-related but are not travel articles unless and until they are made into travel articles. Some of our travel topics are information-heavy but very light on travel as it is. We should discourage this when possible, so deleting this article is best. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. I think we shouldn't be creating articles as placeholders, except for good reason, and this is just a placeholder. The article does not tell anything a reader interested in travelling for yoga wouldn't know, so finding it through a link or search engine is just frustrating. Rather than creating such stubs, editors could tell their ideas on the talk page. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

American colonialism[edit]

Per my statement around 1.5 months ago, I said I'll nominate it for deletion if there was no travel content added. To this date, there's still yet zero places listed apart from countries which all this belongs in simple.wikipedia, not in a travel guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

With the expansion of historical travel articles, Wikivoyage has yet to settle on how to present large-scale history, in particular colonial empires, to the reader. Many historical articles have an emphasis on the historical narrative, and it feels as if we are missing out on Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. One way to salvage the material from this article, is insertion into the chronological series of early United States history, American Civil War, Old West, industrialization of the United States and postwar United States. /Yvwv (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete. I don't see how that would salvage anything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It would be an appropriate framework, but the article still has to be worthwhile. I don't know how this could be developed into a travel guide. I don't think anybody is going to visit e.g. the Dominican Republic to see traces of American colonialism ("American" quite confusing in this context), and if you are going there for other reasons, the History section of the country article should probably tell more on the subject than the colonialism article can tell. On the other hand, enough should be included in articles about the USA to remind people of this aspect of the country's history – and a bit on neocolonialism wouldn't hurt, also covering other colonialist powers, but where? In discussion on colonialism and in Travel in developing countries? –LPfi (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. If anyone wants to move text to other articles, they should do so, but our history sections are usually more than sufficient. Wikipedia does a better job of explaining history. We should focus on travel information. Ground Zero (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity. This is useful information, but on the wrong wiki. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately, Wikibooks needs citations, and encyclopedia pages are deleted on sight. Wood be good for Wikiversity though, although I don't do much apart from anti-vandal work there. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete An article about American colonialism should contain places in former colonies that are remnants of American occupation/rule or important historic events related to the colonization/colony itself. This article has none of that. It would be more work to try and "rework" this article than it would to just delete it and let a future user with the motivation to make it relevant recreate it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

I don't think anyone will be using this extra-region at all. Not only is this now a non-existant jurisdiction, I don't think this is a common search term now. It would have made sense in 2006 when it was created, but not today. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Basically, this is a disambiguation page, but as the best way to handle the situation given the history, weak keep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - we should wait more than 15 years before deleting former countries. AlasdairW (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Cycling in France[edit]

Cycling in France (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A stubby topic with no travel content whatsoever. The only useful into is France plays host to the iconic Tour de France, the top cycling sports event in the world, but I and probably most others had already known that before. Similar to my comments about Yoga, if it were to remain like this, it may as well be deleted. If someone worked on it within 13 days and 23 hours, I might withdraw this nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Agreed. Delete if the article remains as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]


  • Delete. We don't need a disambiguation page for one existing Australian football league and two defunct U.S. football leagues. See Talk:AFL for more background. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nomination. Let's stay a travel guide. It's what we do best. Ground Zero (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Pashley (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Tai123.123 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]


File:Quezoncity.jpg – likely from an unfree source. The indicated source is, but it is not sure if the image itself is freely-licensed or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Is it up to us to check whether a site called "everystockphoto" is being honest? I don't think we want to do what's too often done on Commons, which is to assume bad faith on the part of the uploader, such that something that's presented as a free image for whatever reason might not be and therefore has to be considered copyright violation and summarily deleted. So can you provide actual evidence that it's a copyrighted image? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ikan Kekek: stock images are usually not free and do not comply with freeness required by Wikimedia Foundation as defined by Definition of Free Cultural Works. Stock images are usually used in accordance with licensing negotiations from the original photographers, typically by media plan or agreed use. Most stock images are not commercially reusable (which is a chief requirement for free CC licenses). As per Wikivoyage:Non-free content#Exemption Doctrine Policy, the two types of unfree elements allowed here are limited quotations of texts and images of copyrighted public works of no FOP countries. However, such images must be taken by uploaders themselves, or by Wikitravel uploaders. To quote: "2. Photographs of copyrighted artwork and architecture must be otherwise free; contributors may not upload images taken from non-free sources just because they depict copyrighted works that are allowed under this policy." —The preceding comment was added by JWilz12345 (talkcontribs)
I think you mean Wikivoyage uploaders. I know of at least one page that has absolutely free images that anyone is free to download and use in any way they like, without even having to give permission. What do you know about the terms this particular site imposes on users who download photos from it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I know nothing about the site, but given that stock photos usually are non-free by the Wikimedia definition, and that most people who haven't been engaged at Commons (or in the free software movement) don't understand the difference between free for the press and free in the Wikimedia sense, I wouldn't trust an unknown uploader to have got it right, unless there is some evidence. –LPfi (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]