Votes for deletion
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. Nominating[edit]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: ===[[Chicken]]=== Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~ Commenting[edit]All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is: ===[[Chicken]]=== * '''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]
Archiving[edit]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. First, describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion, with something like "archive as kept". Then add a line for the result to the discussion on the archive page. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then the nomination should be mentioned on its talk page. Generally this is done by providing a link to the deletion discussion on the talk page. One should also indicate the result on the talk page. If the discussion is short, an alternative is to place an (identical duplicate) copy of the discussion on the talk page. See also:
|
October 2024
[edit]Unneeded duplicate of Pituamkek National Park Reserve but with no salvageable content. Hog Island exists as a redirect and I don't see the need to maintain this with the disambiguator as another redirect. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 00:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per SHB2000. Ground Zero (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Pashley (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I'm truly not meaning to be pedantic, but the Vfd candidate isn't actually a duplicate of Pituamkek National Park Reserve as far as I can tell. The former is the island itself and the latter a conservation+public use area which includes the island (disclaimer: I've never been there, though it looks lovely). Sure, it's a stub, but all pages start out as stubs, even if only in the mind of the editor who later breathes life into them in a more substantial form, but also sometimes as just a drive-by edit by some "rando" like we have here…putting a grain of sand in the wiki-oyster. It's not hurting anything, it's not imaginary and it lowers the barrier to entry for someone who might find it someday and make their first edit there. I'm open to being persuaded, though, if anyone feels that vehemently about it. — 🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk (My recent mischief) 08:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It would make sense for an encyclopedia article, but we don't have two bottom-level articles covering the same area on Wikivoyage. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It seems simplest to just make the term a redirect. What's the down side of that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect but find it unnecessary when no pages link to it and Hog Island already exists (meaning it would just be a meaningless + orphaned redirect). Or maybe I'm just too used to enwikibooks where we routinely delete such redirects. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I get you. But you have to admit, turning this into a redirect would have saved time and caused no problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, I fully agree with you, but I was very unsure a week ago and Deleting vs redirecting isn't an invalid discussion to have either. I wouldn't mind if you went ahead and redirected this article now, though. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I get you. But you have to admit, turning this into a redirect would have saved time and caused no problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect but find it unnecessary when no pages link to it and Hog Island already exists (meaning it would just be a meaningless + orphaned redirect). Or maybe I'm just too used to enwikibooks where we routinely delete such redirects. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It seems simplest to just make the term a redirect. What's the down side of that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It would make sense for an encyclopedia article, but we don't have two bottom-level articles covering the same area on Wikivoyage. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd still delete it. We have a listing for Hog Island in the park article & I just fixed the Hog Island redirect so it points to the listing instead of the article, so this article (even as a redirect) is entirely unnecessary. Pashley (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Similar case as #Etang-Salé above with no integration whatsoever. Furthermore, individual beaches don't get their own articles per WV:WIAA; unsure whether to redirect or delete, but I'm leaning towards delete since a) the content is barely salvageable; and b) it's not even capitalised properly. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per SHB2000. Ground Zero (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rename & Redirect This one had some absolutely breathtaking photos on Commons and I didn't know Réunion even existed before this Vfd, so since it taught me something new, I didn't have the heart to let it's sandy little head lay on the chopping block. It seems to be that the most productive course of action is to rename the page to Petite-Île without leaving a redirect to the current name. However in the spirit of honoring the work of the original author, I think a redirect should be made for Grande Anse Beach (or Bay, if the preference here goes to naming pages for geographical features over attractions) to Petite-Île. I know my little bit of tinkering left it far from ship-shape and Bristol fashion, but I was mindful to address the stated concerns of the nomination. I do believe it is now integrated, has a page banner and as in the previous case, another grain of sand in the oyster for a future editor. — 🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk (My recent mischief) 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rename It would make a decent start for a Petite-Île article. Pashley (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
This comes across like an unreferenced Wikipedia article, rather than a travel article. There is no information on how to get there, what to see and do, where to eat or where to sleep. This place is so small that it doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. No-one has tried to rescue this article by adding travel information over the last two.months. Ground Zero (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Iresi is mentioned in wikipedia:Igbajo. It is about 10 miles east of Ada town. Looking on the map, I see little of interest in Iresi. AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – it has remained as such since March. 7 months is more than enough time to develop it into an actual article as opposed to the sad sombre article it is. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Looking at the history, I see that the user (Special:Contributions/FHG001) who created it has not edited it since, has made no other WV edits & is globally locked. Pashley (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Globally locked as a spam-only account, too – gives me all the more reason to support deletion. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]Similar stub article that reads like an unreferenced enwiki article (cf the last few stub nominations) with no integration whatsoever and has been abandoned for more than 1 month. I would redirect, but it's easier for a newcomer to start an article from scratch than it is from a redirect and there is zero salvageable content from here. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support The article's creator, @Churerange:, hasn't made any further edits to Wikivoyage since creating this article, so I don't think, we'll see any travel content added. Ground Zero (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)