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

December 2015[edit]


  • Not in use. So no need to keep. WOSlinker (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Traditionally, we've kept Olympic host city templates until the next Olympics comes around so that we can use it as a basis for the next Olympic template. Speaking of which, it may be time to create Template:Rio2016. Powers (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Does the template have really that much value? I created Pyeongchang_2018 without any such template. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Template:Pyeongchang2018 would go in Pyeongchang and any other cities with Olympic venues. Powers (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes... but I seem to be be missing something here. Given Template:Pyeongchang2018 never existed, why would it be of any value now that the article has been created? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    It has nothing to do with Pyeongchang 2018 except that the template links to it. The Olympic templates (such as Template:Sochi2014) are placed in the articles for host cities and cities with Olympic venues, in order to provide useful links and identify which venues are in the city. Powers (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    You can see an example of how Template:Sochi2014 was used here. Powers (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    That sort of makes more sense in the example. Thanks. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have any strong opinion since this template is still referenced from a talk page and a few other places, but Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Templates notes that if a template is unused then that is a valid reason to consider deleting it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Second comment Any further feedback? A few arguments were made in favor or keeping this template, but since there aren't any actual "keep" votes my interpretation of the discussion is that no one feels strongly about keeping the template, thus this VFD should be resolved as a delete? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    We shouldn't delete it until we've created Template:Rio2016. Powers (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now, as a model for future event templates. Peter Chastain (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


We don't have articles on rivers. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but we do have itineraries like Along the Yangtze River and another half dozen Along... titles. Would this make sense rewritten to one of those? Pashley (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Expand. In its current state it is a debatable article but the Danube is such a tourist attraction I think it should stay as an Extra Region and needs some work put into it. Itinerary is a possibility but the whole length is not often done with the exception of a few cruise ships and the most fit of cyclists. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep (that is, don't delete), as per Traveler100's and Pashley's points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rivers don't make good extra-hierarchical regions because they don't have well defined areas. (Watersheds could be used, but usually they don't make for very good travel groupings.) It could be valid as an itinerary (vis Erie Canal), but Traveler100 points out a significant barrier. Powers (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - an itinerary might make sense, but this as a "region" covers 1/3 of Europe. It doubles a number of smaller Danube-centred regions along its route and does not serve a purpose. Instructions on how one can travel down the entire course of the Danube would make sense as an itinerary, but not as a regular guide. This is not Wikipedia, we should not have an article for EVERY phrase one may look for. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, if not as an extraregion then as an itinerary. It is a major tourist attraction and has some of the most beautiful and historic cities in the world along it. Often the focal point of peoples holidays either with car, hiking, cycling, private boat or cruise ship. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Danube is massive. It is not a "tourist attraction", trying to "see the Danube" is almost impossible unless one has at least a fortnight. Therefore, an itinerary for hardcore Danube enthusiast might be interesting - not only for following entirely, but to be used in parts, an containing mostly information on moving along the Danube that would otherwise be a bit too much to keep in successive destination articles. But it is not a region in any sense and is impossible to describe the way we describe regions, unless we immediately start splitting it into smaller regions, which in turn makes it a superfluous region that would rather better be a disambig page.
In short, if you want to know where Danube flows and what lies along it, visit Wikipedia. If you have advice on travelling along the Danube, create an itinerary. If you want to create yet another alternative layer of regions to cover the same things prompting duplication of content and potential splitting of the thin editorial effort, as well as making maintenance an issue (yet another article to update with every bit of relevant info, decide on splitting info between articles and making sure articles do not contradict, which is often an end result of users deciding to each tend to their own preferred allotments) - please don't. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
A fortnight is not a long time for a trip and not for a holiday. Attraction as in a see listing no, but try not to think WIkivoyage policies and think someone thinking about visiting part of the Danube. It is a real challenge to find your way round the Wikivoage articles without this page. Are you seriously proposing jumping back a forward between WIkipedia and Wikivoage? Also not talking about alternative regions covering the same topics as existing, This is the reason for Extraregions, to collect articles together on a subject a visitor to the site may asked about but then guide them thought the structure of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I'm reading the previous comments correctly, the "keep" votes are being made under the argument that the current article could be reworked into an itinerary. If that's the case, delete the existing article since it isn't an itinerary article now. Nothing is stopping someone from creating an itinerary in the future, but the policy on itineraries is that they need to either be about a recognized route or see a minimum amount of development, and this article currently meets neither of those criteria.. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    Comment Article has been reworked into an extraregion, so I see no harm in keeping it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To also consider for deletion: Hudson Valley; Amazonia; Delaware Valley; Loire Valley. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    What's wrong with Hudson Valley? It's a disambiguation-style extra-hierarchical region. Valleys are often used as travel regions. Powers (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing, just another example of a river extraregion, which I think is valid but other not. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
But it's not a river-based extra-hierarchical region. The valley is a related but separate geographic feature and a well-known travel region. Powers (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to "Along the Danube" (leaving a redirect) and tag it as an outline itinerary. The existing article is already more like an itinerary than a region, so make it one. Pashley (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would work fine as an itinerary; travel topic has also been suggested. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] It's very disturbing how many of you want to just throw away something of use to travellers. Are we to inflexibly follow a narrow interpretation of policy just because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest the current article seems to be a failed experiment and precisely not of use to anybody. And I doubt many people would be served by articles on rivers just for the sake of it. If there are well established routes like the Elbe Radweg, we are talking about something else, but I fear that we will soon be overwhelmed by hard to maintain stubs whose only reason for existence is the fact that some water flows downhill Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It also worries me this need to delete articles or text from articles just because it is not perfect. Seem to me to be against the spirit of a Wiki site. There are a lot of articles with room for improvement, the point if wiki is to improve on other peoples work not endless criticism and discussion. We should all be spending more time enhancing articles not removing information. And remember you cannot always predict how someone will come across this site or want to use it. It is important to have landing pages that then guide the travelling into the real useful pages of Wikivoyage. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan here. I see no reason to even consider deletion; the questions are how to make what we have more useful and what needs to be added. Pashley (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote on this one. I would comment that we will continue to see friction based on people's own belief about what 'Wiki Spirit' and Ttcf really mean. I would ask the 'keepers' to make some compromise here, for example by agreeing that all the generic 'lists' can be removed and only genuinely useful content should remain. This would allow someone to rebuild this a more helpful way. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're suggesting as a compromise. No-one who opposes deletion is arguing that the article shouldn't be improved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
What here is useful to travelers? The list of countries? The only thing I see, aside from what can be found in any general reference tome, is the link to our The Danube Cycleway article. There's basically nothing else on the page. Powers (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me, this is properly an itinerary or travel topic. The fact that it's not a well-developed article is a reason to develop it, not delete it, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The article certainly could be improved, but as it stands it still provides some useful info to a potential visitor to Europe. Consider somebody at the first step of planning a visit to Europe, who has been told by a friend to "take a cruise on the Danube". From this article they can get to Bratislava#By boat (and other articles). AlasdairW (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this should be kept and improved. I can imagine several ways to improve it, but for a certain (older) demographic, this is a pretty popular "destination". There's quite a lot to say about just the river cruise aspect, such as why fares are cheaper in the Spring (higher risk of flooding = higher risk of cancellation). The question of whether to shoehorn this into Artificial Page Type X or Artificial Page Type Y seems far less important to me than providing relevant, useful, accurate information to the traveler. Keep the page now; classify it some other year, whenever there's nothing important to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I would not call it "shoehorning" into an "artificial page type" as much as the reason why this article has not been updated much prior to this vfd. Besides not being linked to from very many places, anybody stumbling over it will most likely be confused as to what this article is supposed to be and do. Other articles, that are clearly travel topics, destination guides or itineraries are much easier to update than this strange otherworld limbo. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Please also look at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water#Danube. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes were approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep". Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am still not convinced by the keep argument. In its current state the article is ironically less travel relevant than the WP article on the same subject. While there might be a SEO argument (which I doubt, given the duplicate penalty), it is doubtful we would gain more than one hit by a visitor who searches for that as this article is unlikely to create any form of retention. Other articles are much better in that regard. If we want to keep this article and others, we should change our bodies of water policy as we know de facto do have articles that are about bodies of water. Maybe we even have to create a new "River" article template. I don't like that idea, but if it is well executed (and does not saddle us with yet more work on a marginal part of our guides) it might provide some value after all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'll leave it to another admin to decide how to resolve this nomination, but to my reading of the discussion the "delete" votes still aren't citing policy to justify deletion, while the argument for keeping the article is that it's a valid extraregion. Since deletion should only be done in accordance with the existing deletion policy ("Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy") it still seems to me that the correct resolution in this case is to keep the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


There seem to have been inconclusive debates about this article a decade ago. I say delete it as a violation of policy Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I we should consider the policy based on the fact we now have ExtraRegions. The Rhine is a major focal point for tourists visiting Europe. Would to me be a big gap in a travel guide. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is an extraregion, and a pretty clearly defined one. It could be expanded into an itinerary or left as an extraregion, with more information added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the violation of policy? It is tagged as an extraregion, so there doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we keep this article, we have to seriously ask ourselves the question: Do we want an article about every river in existence? And if not, how and where are we going to draw the line? I see nothing that makes the Rhine "so special" that could not similarly be said about dozens of other rivers, including the Mississippi River, the Huangho or even the Volga Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say that any long, important river that is itself an attraction, currently has plenty of river traffic, and is lined with appealing places to visit probably would merit an article, either an itinerary with links or some kind of region or extra-region article. That definitely includes Mississippi River and Yangtze River; I'm not sure about Yellow River (Huang He) or Volga. By the way, do you notice that there are Along the Yangtze River and Along the Yellow River itinerary articles, though the Yangtze one is better developed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Judging by that, we need to have a serious debate on whether to update our current bodies of water policy. While I fully agree that some of those articles can be worthwhile if done right (after all, Ruta del Tránsito is basically "along the Rio San Juan" with a bit of Lake Nicaragua and Pacific Nicaragua thrown in), there does exist the potential for half empty articles on every. river. in. existence. If we say yes to Rhine and Danube, what about the Oder? It runs along a major international border, after all. What about the Neiße? Görlitz lies along it. And what about canals? Rhein and Donau are linked, after all. I mean yes, itineraries could cover the more well known of those, but just having articles on rivers because rivers exist strikes me as... silly, in absence of a better term. It's not like we have (more than) enough outline articles of certain types already. And I think we should have a debate on our bodies of water policy, which has become rather diluted, so to speak. Sorry for the pun. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
China also has Along the Grand Canal, quite undeveloped. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the test for bodies of water, as for any other subject, should be whether there is enough content, or at least potential content, for there to be useful articles about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure Wikivoyage:Bodies of water needs updating. The key point is "We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water" [emphasis added] with the following caveat: "Some regions or for that matter towns are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about water, they are about the inhabited area on and around the water, with all the sorts of things that make an destination article-worthy." Itineraries and travel topics about traveling on or near bodies of water are also mentioned. If you'd like to discuss these issues more, though, feel free to start a new discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I am certain, that reading Australian media with clusters of travel adverts for river cruising, there are only so many rivers in the world where the conditions are ok for travel (that is length, type of boat, and adequate conditions for travel by tourist craft) with enough material to justify an article (thus perhaps allaying Hobbitschuster's anxiety about do we want an article about every river, the answer is a very definite no) I think that criterion should be where adequate information is available (same as Ikan's comment about adequate or poential content), and where genuine tourist travel occurs. There are not that many.JarrahTree (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes are approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep". Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am still in favor of deletion as there is no good target for redirection and the article in its current form does not provide much value for anybody. Furthermore it creates a slippery slop towards similar "extraregions" for each and every river which would violate if not the words than the spirit of our bodies of water policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    No-one is going to argue for the creation or retention of articles about every river and creek. JarrahTree and I gave you a standard above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'll leave it to another admin to resolve this nomination since I am biased towards resolving as "keep" per my earlier comments. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Alger (Michigan)[edit]

  • Delete - cannot find anything about what to see or do or any places to eat or sleep there. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, and fact that the article has no content. Peter Chastain (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Northeastern Michigan. Yet again, we do not delete real places. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete without leaving a redirect - No. I don't know where this policy comes from that we "don't delete real places" but we cannot redirect every Pahdonk in rural Wyoming to some region or city article just because some page creation vandal created the article to make a point. There are seven billion people on this earth. Half of them live in what the UN calls cities. Which means the other half is spread out over places that don't make definitions that in Denmark have a hundred people threshold and in some other places less. It would be ridiculous to have a redirect for every single of these places and even more ridiculous to have disambiguation pages full of those redirects. We will have to draw the line somewhere and yes, this will involve deleting "real places". Not all places with a population lower than x (and it is no matter where set x) will have to be deleted without leaving a redirect. But as one famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography once said "I know it when I see it". And in this case (unlike the ruling in the SC case), this is it. This should be deleted. Without redirect and without mercy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unlikely search term of no real SEO value. A web search finds the village town hall and a (members-only) shooting club, but nothing of interest to the traveller. No point in redirecting this to another page if the target page has no useful info (and will have no useful info) on this village. K7L (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment When an article is created with literally no content - just an empty skeleton, and in this case no effort to even change the [[Region name]] link to a real place - I'd be in favor of giving the user a short time to develop the article more fully, but to then allow deletion it if it stays empty (provided there isn't an obvious redirect target). Our policy on this type of useless article isn't really settled, but I agree with others who feel that the site quality is compromised by articles without content for places that probably don't merit an article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Policy says that we don't redirect real places, and that settles the matter as far as I'm concerned. If we want to talk about changing policy, fine, but here is not the place to do it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there evidence that this was a case of page creation vandalism? If so, that would amply justify straight deletion per policy. If not, the "redirect real places" policy governs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait and then Redirect - Policy can be interpreted in conflicting ways in this situation, however since it doesn't meet Wiaa policy anyway then a redirect would be appropriate. A few days to allow the contributor to prove that the article is sufficiently compelling would be also appropriate. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but aren't a minimum of 14 days required before taking action on a VfD that's not a slam-dunk speedy deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
A redirect is the obvious solution when there is a good redirect target, but in this case the proposed resolution is to redirect a village of a few hundred people to Northeastern Michigan, an area larger than some US states; I'm not sure that solution makes much sense from a usability perspective. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
At worst, redirecting would be a lateral move that does no harm; at best, it might inspire someone searching for Alger but redirected to Northeastern Michigan to add content. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we need to have a discussion about (the current interpretation of the) "always redirect" rule. I don't think I am the only one to think this is taking us to ridiculous places more often than not. Some of our existing redirects don't make real sense (Central Germany redirects to Germany, which is not really helpful for anybody except as a satisfaction of policy). And as for the specific case, the IP that created the article in question (with the wrong template to boot) made not a single other edit. It may just have been someone who hit some button by mistake for all I know... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It's clear the always redirect rule isn't working anymore. The whole point of the rule is so that we could avoid discussions like this one, but we are obviously no longer avoiding them. Powers (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    Part of the confusion is that there isn't an "always redirect rule"; instead we have a rule of thumb to apply in the majority of cases, but the rule of thumb fails in cases where there isn't an obvious redirect target. From the deletion policy: "The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete". -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
But there always is an obvious redirect target, that being the article next higher up in the breadcrumb hierarchy. I just don't see it as an important issue whether the geographic area covered by the redirect target is very large, or whether the redirect target doesn't have any content. In the first case, any region article that's too wide in geographic scope to comfortably contain all the information we have about what's within its borders would already have been broken down into smaller regions anyway. In the latter case, as I said above, anyone who searches for Alger and is redirected to an article with no information ought to be inspired to either create the Alger article or add content to the redirect article. In either case, the ultimate principle behind it is that redirects are cheap and do no harm. As to Powers' comments, the "always redirect" rule is working fine. What's not working is that no matter how often we go over it on this page, certain users can't seem to grasp the concept of what to do with skeleton articles: if it's a place that's large or important enough that it could hypothetically support an article of its own, leave it alone; if not, redirect it yourself without putting it through the VfD process. I understand that it's frustrating that some people need to be repeatedly reminded of this very simple rule, but that's not the rule's fault. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please don't speak down to "certain users"; if there's nothing to see or do, nowhere to eat and nowhere to sleep then waiting for someone to be "inspired to either create the Alger article or add content to the redirect article" is pointless. There's no Alger content to add. K7L (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That still doesn't explain what harm would be done by a redirect. If a user searches for Alger, is redirected to Northeastern Michigan, and finds no information there either, the obvious conclusion is that there's nothing for tourists to do in Alger. That constitutes an accurate answer to the question that prompted the search. Also, anyone in that situation who does feel inspired to add information to either Alger or Northeastern Michigan, then searches for that information in other sources and finds nothing, comes to the same conclusion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here - if a search for "Alger Michigan" leads to a Northeastern Michigan article that has no mention of anything about Alger I don't think it is at all obvious that "there's nothing for tourists to do in Alger", and I think it's more confusing than just showing "no results found". I also think that a redirect in this case would discourage adding any content since content about a village of a few hundred people does not belong in an article that covers 20% of the state of Michigan. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Then Andre is right that we need to change policy on deleting vs redirecting. While I accept your correction that the rule is not "always redirect", the policy seems clear to me that the cases for non-redirection have always been intended to be local establishments and facilities, not geographic locations for which we don't want to write articles. If you want the rule of thumb to not apply to such places, then the rule needs to be clarified. Powers (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry I asked, should have just deleted the page. Sometimes forget some peoples obsessions with the letter of the law rather than being sensible. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    That would be entirely contrary to policy and an abuse of your administrator tools. Not cool. (Nor is the backhanded aspersion about "obsessions with the letter of the law".) Powers (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    We allow admins some measure of discretion, and a strong argument could have been made for deleting this article as "no useful content or test", so accusations of admin abuse might be a bit harsh. Everyone in this discussion has the project's best interest at heart, but I think this and other discussions are revealing that an effort to simplify and clarify the site's policies would be valuable since they are being interpreted differently by different people. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    I really don't think the "no useful content" clause was intended to allow deletion of articles on real places. Powers (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is almost certainly a case of creation vandalism: with a few keystrokes, an IP user in Algeria copies a template, without bothering to change the lede from "Region name is in Country name," and has us all jumping through hoops. That single edit is the one and only contribution to WV from that IP user. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
That user doesn't sound like a vandal but someone who wanted to start an article for Alger, Algerie, which they didn't realize is Algiers, Algeria in English (the former is the French-language name). That the user did very little and never came back doesn't prove s/he's a vandal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You are right. I didn't make that connection. I should have done a better job of assuming good faith. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Redirecting a place to the next layer up the hierarchy is user-unfriendly, unless the target article mentions that place, because the user will waste time looking for why she was redirected. If Alger is redirected to (and mentioned in) Northeastern Michigan, we should also mention all the other villages of similar size in that region. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on Peter Chastain's first comment, I'll agree we should delete this article, but I stand by everything I said about the "always redirect" rule as applied in all cases that aren't clearly page-creation vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on Ikan Kekek's observation, I am no longer sure it was vandalism. But I don't think a decision to keep or delete should hinge on the creator's motivation, so my first comment isn't really that relevant. Regarding "always redirect", you may want to weigh in on a proposal I have made at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Delete vs redirect. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a lot more sensible to redirect Alger to Algiers than to treat the term as referring to some tiny town in Michigan. Anyone want to reconsider? If people really object to this idea, make it a disambig page if you really must. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind: Alger is already a disambig page. OK, so back to Alger (Michigan)... Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryanair (redirect)[edit]

This redirect has been bothering me for quite some time, as it violates our "we don't generally have articles on businesses" rule. And I don't want to see even a redirect for Delta airlines or Veolia or whichever company we might come up with. And of course in addition to that I don't particularly like the article it currently redirects to, but that is neither here nor there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right. People shouldn't get redirected from airline company names. Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a likely search term. Pashley (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)