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. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone.

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

January 2022[edit]

Tips for woman travellers[edit]

This redirect doesn't seem to be serving readers. It's grammatically inaccurate, and by the time you've typed this much in the search bar the correct name (Tips for women travellers) has already come up. Because it's a typographical error, it's unlikely to be linked either onwiki or offwiki. In its entire lifetime, it's only received 26 views, which supports the suggestion it's not aiding readers with finding the article they want. Because of all of this, the main thing its existence does is leaves a grammatically inaccurate title to pop up in the search bar, potentially causing confusion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This neither a joke nor nonsense so the article should not exist at its current location. It got there by being moved from a mainspace article which was deleted. See Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2014#Islamic_State

I'd say Islam#Salafi-Takfiri covers everything we need to say about this movement. We might create redirects to that from "Islamic State", "ISIS" and/or "ISIL", but I doubt that is necessary. Warnings about their activities go in the country articles.

I do not think we want text that helps anyone go join these guys, for reasons similar to why we do not provide info for pedophiles. Pashley (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yeah not funny. Doesn't belong here. Gizza (roam) 05:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with the above comments, something like that doesn't belong here. Roovinn (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author expressed hope that gallows humour would be accepted here, but forgot to include the humour. Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty skeleton articles created by Paulboht (talk · contribs)[edit]

Affected pages:

These articles were created in the unproductive page creation by the editor Paulboht likely to earn points in the contest. These articles don't even mention where they're located, just "{{PAGENAME}} is in [[Region Name]] along with the empty sections. They were created on 2021/12/28, which is almost a month ago(edit 2022/01/17 03:52: it's three weeks, not a month. Apologies.). They've had ample opportunities to work on it, and when Ground Zero and Ikan question that editor on what they're doing, they just brushed it off with personal attacks. We shouldn't be rewarding this sort of behaviour.

Although I do recognize that we have a policy of not deleting real places – this one is also among one of the exceptions. Additionally, for some like Gambari, it does not appear in a google search nor on Google Maps. I haven't checked the others, but they may be a similar case. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if they are real places, they can be deleted as there is no content. (Do we need to clarify the policy to be clear that there must be some travel information to keep a real place?). AlasdairW (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree they should be deleted, but that is not just clarifying, it is changing policy. We did not delete the empty stubs in Finland Proper, like Paimio. I did write the article half a year later, but starting from scratch is easier than starting from a redirect or empty skeleton – which in this case lacked the templates at the bottom. I think one-liners and redlinks in the region are good enough until somebody gets around adding at least some information, but that is not the consensus. –LPfi (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The difference with the skeletons created by Vkem is that they at least identified where it is. This one however, doesn't seem to do that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]