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).

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

June 2015[edit]

Lake Tanganyika[edit]

A body of water is this article that is hardly more than a skeleton really necessary? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge Nkupi Lodge listing to an appropriate article. I'd like to redirect this search term, but the problem is that the lake is between Southern Africa, East Africa and Central Africa, so the redirect would have to be to Africa. But we should probably do it anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a lake on a border, so it cannot fit well into our hierarchy; I think it should be handled like Lake Tai, as an extrahierarchical region (see Wikivoyage:Extraregion). On the other hand, we have articles like Lake Tahoe, Lake Como, Lake Garda and others which are tagged as regular regions although some of them do not fit well either.
In any case, I oppose deletion since it is a real place, and I'd say anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa that I've actually heard of must be fairly important since in general I am profoundly ignorant about that region. Unless a good redirect is found, an extra region tag seems the obvious solution. Pashley (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right about this as an extrahierarchical region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • comment: Even if we were to make it an extra-hierarchical region, most of its current content would have to be moved or deleted. And I don't see it getting new, appropriate content anytime soon. If anything the extra-region should be "Great African lakes" or "African rift valley" Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to extra-region - I believe that this title should be made into an extra-region, but as there is little or nothing to say to unify the region as a whole, it should be a very stripped-down one like Lake Ontario. That ferry information and sleep listing should be likely moved to a new article on Mpulungu. Texugo (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A related and quite problematic article is MV Liemba, about a famous ferry on the lake. See its talk page for (too) much discussion. I suggest we merge and redirect it to the lake article, dropping unnecessary detail en route. Pashley (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry for being terribly blunt, but I don't understand what's so unclear about "we don't write articles about bodies of water". What little information is in the article itself does not describe a region, extrahierarchical or otherwise - it describes the lake itself. Perhaps we should redirect (though the point about what to redirect to is well taken), but there's no rationale for converting this into an extraregion that has any basis in current policy. This case is about as clear-cut as it gets. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've done some editing and it does now describe an extra region, albeit not very well yet. Of course the article can still be deleted if consensus goes against me, but at least now we have a concrete example of what I think is worth keeping.
I have not tried to do the merge I suggested above & won't until this vfd is resolved.
What is unclear about "we don't write articles about bodies of water" is that in fact we do. I gave four "Lake ..." examples above and there are many others. Lake Baikal, Great Lakes, Mediterranean Sea, Caribbean, Persian Gulf, ... Pashley (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Pashley: of the examples you gave, Great Lakes and Caribbean describe pretty well-known, well-established regions that happen to be named after bodies of water, and the other three probably should be VfD'd too. The mere fact that we have lots of articles that were written in defiance of policy doesn't make the policy itself ambiguous. If we want to change policy to accommodate these articles, great. but that's another matter entirely. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe any of these "defy policy", since the last paragraph of the policy page reads:
"Where the information on the body of water is contained within several articles, or the body of water is large and not specific to a single region, create a extraregion page referencing the destination guides, travel topics and itineraries associated with it."
That is exactly the case here!
Perhaps some of the examples mentioned should be changed to extra regions rather than treated as regular regions, but that is a separate issue & I think not at all urgent. Pashley (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This could be an extraregion, but with this amount of content, the article seems unnecessary. I am not sure if this region works as a region in terms of being more homogenous for the tourist as a lake than the parts of surrounding countries are within themselves. I'd merge the content, if any applicable, to the appropriate articles on surrounding regions. MV Liemba apparently is a major attraction and has no website (from what I infer from the article), so I could see this article stand as a travel topic, much like the Baltic Sea ferries. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Don Muang Airport[edit]

Not a huge airport according to our definition, therefore not worthy of its own article. I propose to merge the content into the city article and redirect the page Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. But this is non-controversial, and vfd discussions aren't needed to merge and redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Didn't know that. Also if it is non-controversial, how did this article come into being in the first place? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Because someone created it. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
That seems logical ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, merge and redirect. Pashley (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Indian Rupee[edit]

Transcluding a template every time we want to include a ₹ symbol is not a good idea from any standpoint -- readability, usability, or technical. The Rupee symbol is available in the box beneath the edit window for anyone who doesn't have the Unicode index memorized. (Of course, we should subst: all of the uses of this template before deleting it.) Powers (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the template should go, but it is going to be a lot of work since it is used in many places. See "what links here" for the page.
Template:INR is a redirect which should go as well. Pashley (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In view of the effect of this decision on the intelligibility of articles (and, therefore, the interests of the reader/traveller), I oppose deletion, unless a bot is created and used to convert these Unicode symbols before the template is deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. It's not strictly necessary to create a bot for this purpose as there aren't that many transclusions that will need to be corrected. About three dozen articles use this template. It'd be rather tedious to do manually, but I took care of a longer list that way when we deleted Template:ICAO. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have an opinion either way, but converting the template to a symbol is an easy task using AWB. If consensus is for deletion and no one else is comfortable using AWB for this task, ping me and I'd be willing to do the necessary updates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : My Computer (Windows, Firefox) does not properly display the symbol for the Indian Rupee... Instead some sort of box appears... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I argued before we made the change that we should just keep "Rs" as the ruppee symbol, same as for Pakistan & Sri Lanka, to avoid this problem.
You can fix it by adding the right unicode font. Pashley (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : Also consider template INR which is a redirect to Indian Rupee.. those articles could be fixed and that template removed as well. There does not appear to be that many articles linked to either template - can assist in editorial work as well - let me know - also ₹ in a template listing I think is a bad token in the listing editor - Matroc (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


First off: I don't know whether this place even actually legitimately exists. Second off: Most of its content are just crude jokes written by somebody who appears to dislike the place and/or its inhabitants. Third off (is this even sound English?): de-WV does not have anything to say about this place, despite it being in Germany and particularly North Hesse, an area that de-WV usually covers very extensively, which suggests there to be not much of value to the voyager there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. The town is shown on OSM, so the place does exist. It's true that the article needs extensive copyedits, but our policy is not to delete real places, and I've not seen any evidence that the town is unimportant enough to be merged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it exists, w:de:Dipperz. The English-language w:Dipperz is a one-line stub, but there might be something useful in de.WP's article? K7L (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no travel relevant content in the German WP article. Just the last two election results and a half paragraph on history that mentions the first mention of the place and not much else. I would thus favor a redirect as our policy on real places is to not delete them (even though I would think it to be not a bad idea here) Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Why are we being so hasty in judging Dipperz unworthy of its own article? It's no more possible to come to the conclusion that a place has no relevance to travelers based on its Wikipedia article than based on its Wikivoyage article. For instance, a quick Google search shows that Dipperz contains several hotels, so it passes the sleep test. The article may need to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that at least half the article seems at least potentially to not be vandalism (everything up to and including "See", as well as "Go next"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


A possible copvyo in addition to being not an article. What good does it do to keep it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a real place, so policy is to merge and redirect. The obvious merge target is Moscow, or one of its districts.
On quick inspection, it looks to me like most of the current text should be lost along the way and the whole thing reduced to under a dozen lines, either a listing or a paragraph. However, I might be dead wrong; someone who knows Moscow should make that call. It is even possible the article should be kept as either a travel topic or an additional Moscow district.
See Canton Fair for an example of a redirect for a somewhat similar place. Pashley (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, the place is listed on Moscow Outskirts:
  •   All-Russia Exhibition Centre (Всероссийский выставочный центр), Prospekt Myra (просп. Мира), 119 (M: VDNKh 1.3km SE, Botanicheskiy Sad 1.8km N),  +7 (495) 544-3400, e-mail: . A permanent general-purpose trade show. The exhibition was established February 17, 1935 as the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition, all of the pavilions were to be constructed from wood. In 1959 the park was renamed, - Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy ( Выставка Достижений Народного Хозяйства Vystavka Dostizheniy Narodnovo Khozyaystva) or ВДНХ/VDNKh, -& rebuilt. By 1989 the exhibition had 82 pavilions with the exhibition area of 700,000 square metres. Each pavilion (including the 1939 "regions" example: Leningrad, Armenia, Belarus, Karelia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, North Caucasus, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan) had been dedicated to a particular industry or a field: the Engineering, the Space, the Atomic Energy, the People's Education, the Radioelectronics & the Soviet Culture Pavilion. In 1992, VDNKh was renamed, receiving its current name VVC. It occupies 237ha of which 26ha are used for indoor exhibits. It has approximately 400 buildings. Some sights here: pavilions, fountains, a luna-park, Ferris wheel, Cosmonautics museum, Cirkorama theatre and even a rocket. Map.

Ibaman (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So it is huge — a hectare is 10,000 m2 or 107,000 ft2 — 80 years old & a permanent exhibition. Definitely not delete, but I'm not sure how it should be handled. Pashley (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A subheading in See in the Moscow Outskirts article? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, merge as appropriate and redirect to Moscow Outskirts, per User:Nastoshka's remarks in Talk:VDNH. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Koh Kong island[edit]

In addition to being badly written and not complying with our manual of style, this article appears to be about a private resort or something of the sort and thus would also not comply with our rules for what is an article in the most cases; I do think in this one as well... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It is a real place, w:Koh Kong (island), and not all of it is a private resort.
Yes, there are plenty of problems, but it is far from vandalism or unsalvageable. I suspect just a new user unfamiliar with our manual of style and somewhat shaky in a 2nd (for all we know, 5th) language. Such people need aid & encouragemnt, not to have their contributions deleted. Pashley (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I've done a first-pass copy edit, putting it partly into our style. If it is kept, it will need more. Pashley (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
After the issues were pointed out to him, the user vowed to return and further improve the article. Which he never did. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Turn into a listing in Koh Kong and redirect. See discussion at Talk:Koh Kong island and also (if you really want to) at User talk:Dryland94 (you may have to go into the history of that user talk page to make greater sense out of it. By the way, you will see at the end of that user talk page that the user did not vow to return, and also why such a user didn't need "encouragement", but simply got abusive at being asked to work within policies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I dimly recall that he at some point wrote something like "this article is not yet finish" (sic!) or something to that extent somewhere, which would imply he was going to continue editing it, which he never did. I however don't think this user could have ever turned into a positive contributor. But that's not the issue here. The issue at hand is whether this place deserves an (its own) article. For me the answer clearly is no. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Merge and redirect is fine with me. Pashley (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg and File:Baltimore pennstation banner EDITED.jpg[edit]

The last time we discussed File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg (Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg), I opposed deletion as I felt the presence of the statue was an essential part of the picture. I no longer find that to be the case, which means a picture of the station could be taken without the statue, which means we don't need to invoke fair use. Simply moving the camera a few feet left or right should provide a similar view without the statue in it.

The EDITED version is used only in the linked discussion, and while it's a much better edit than Nick wanted to take credit for, we shouldn't keep it around indefinitely. UNLESS, that is, we decided we wanted to use it as the banner on Baltimore/Midtown in place of the unedited version. But I and others have qualms about misrepresenting the view in this way.

This is a complex case, and I am quite open to being persuaded against anything I've said above.

-- Powers (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an alternative photo you're proposing to use for a banner? The fact that in theory, a different photo could be taken doesn't seem to me to be enough of a reason to delete a banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The edited version could be moved to commons as the edit has removed the non-free element that caused the banner to kept local. The description would need to be changed to clearly describe the edit. AlasdairW (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Sorcerers Hat at Disneys Hollywood Studios by eddison moreno.jpg[edit]

As much as I love this image, the Hat has been removed from the park and so the image no longer serves a purpose in our travel guide. Powers (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial. Based on your reasoning, I'd support a Speedy deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)