Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2026
| ← June 2026 | Votes for deletion archives for July 2026 | (current) August 2026 → |
While this article looks well-written, it does not follow the standard park template that can be found at WV:AT. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- My concern would be whether it's copyright violation or not. If it is, it must be nuked. If it isn't, it could be suitably edited if someone wants to do that. Why wouldn't you have posted to @LouisJSchoeman's user talk page first? I daresay, it's improper procedure not to do that first. I'll do it, and I request for no-one to delete this article while we give him a chance to read something I'll post to his user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's why I have nominated it for VFD instead of simply nuking the article. Yes, I should have notified the creator, which I forgot while dealing with various pages in WV:Maintenance panel. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Seems unlikely. //shb (t | c | m) 01:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- This by policy technically qualifies for speedy deletion as an abandoned stub left for more than 7 days. As such, consider this
Done. //shb (t | c | m) 12:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Until recently, we had an article at Tiger Leaping Gorge. After a series of moves by @Waysi34: these two new articles were created. Both the others are currently redirects to Tiger Leaping Gorge trek which has the text from the original article.
Certainly "The ..." should be deleted. I'd move the article back to Tiger Leaping Gorge & delete both the new ones. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would delete The Tiger Leaping Gorge trek and keep Tiger Leaping Gorge trek, while moving the latter to Tiger Leaping Gorge. If there are substantial histories in both redirects, I would merge them to the existing article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hey! I moved it because the article describes the trek/trail, not the gorge itself. The "The ..." title was indeed an error and should be deleted.
- I think Tiger Leaping Gorge trek is the more precise title for the current article. Tiger Leaping Gorge can either be a separate article about the gorge, or redirect there for now. Waysi34 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. So I'm deleting the "The ..." title. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Outcome: Tiger Leaping Gorge trek is kept pending the lack of consensus to delete. The title with "the" has already been deleted so nothing needs to happen here. //shb (t | c | m) 11:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Creating this page was a terrible decision. I had no clue that nobody else wanted it, and even if I wanted to, there would be no way I could get people to help. And I know ZIP about Pakistan, which someone recommended me to do instead. CrunchLabs (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- This looks to me like it could be speedy deleted as an author request, but others have contributed to the page so perhaps not. Pashley (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'd support quick deletion. Edits to the page by others were not based on participation in the editing event. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Outcome: speedily deleted per author's request. //shb (t | c | m) 22:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Short Hills
Hi! Just currently making a page on Millburn, New Jersey. Short Hills is an unincorporated neighborhood of Millburn. PS please make the July section for this CrunchLabs (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect to Millburn. Short Hills is still what many locals call Millburn, so I feel like I can redirect it. We can keep Short Hills until the real Millburn page gets large enough to be an outline/usable article. CrunchLabs (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Based on what you've said I'd just redirect that. //shb (t | c | m) 03:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Outcome: no consensus to delete; redirects/merges should be handled on the talk page. //shb (t | c | m) 01:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
This is a bit of a complex one. Both these articles were created by ThatEquatorialGuineaEditor (alt), who has been globally (b)locked for lock evasion (not block evasion, btw – the distinction is important here). Behaviorally and also technically (from CU results), it's very likely Te Reo Ahitereiria, but it's very hard to 100% confirm this with the data I was working with. I don't actually remember if Te Reo Ahitereiria's socks were ever locally blocked here, but they have a very large tendency to work on destinations they have no idea about, or abuse machine translations (such as their socks contributing to mgwiki, despite Madagascar having almost no geographic or linguistic connection to Equatorial Guinea, or translating enwikivoyage articles to pswikivoyage and fawikivoyage).
Given the lack of trustworthiness from this editor, I at the very least propose we start off by deleting these three articles. If they were evading a local block, I probably would've speedied them, but I'd prefer to go through the VfD process since this isn't a clear-cut case. //shb (t | c | m) 08:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- All of this user's contributions have to be deleted. What language does ps stand for, by the way? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Pashto. If the information is unreliable also regarding Equatorial Guinea – which seems likely if they don't care regarding the other places – I assume they have to be deleted. –LPfi (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, ps is Pashto as LP mentioned. Only reason I'm starting with these three as I believe there's some articles this user started that have significantly been edited by others (at least from what I remember) – those ones I think can be kept. //shb (t | c | m) 10:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Those articles should not be kept unless the other editors were actually familiar with the places in question or looked stuff up, rather than copy editing, fixing links and so on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- I added Wikidata numbers to three places in the Mongomo article. This information is thus verified, so I don't understand why it would be deleted. The other two articles do not have any verified information. Ground Zero (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- OK, great. We can and should keep that article, then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- I added Wikidata numbers to three places in the Mongomo article. This information is thus verified, so I don't understand why it would be deleted. The other two articles do not have any verified information. Ground Zero (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- Those articles should not be kept unless the other editors were actually familiar with the places in question or looked stuff up, rather than copy editing, fixing links and so on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Outcome: Ebibeyin and Mbini deleted per community consensus; Mongomo kept. //shb (t | c | m) 09:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)