Logo Voyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion Voyage Tips and guide

You can check the original Wikivoyage article Here
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.

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 hosted 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]
  • 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 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.
  • When deleting a template, either replace it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name (especially if the use is in article space, you may then want to clean away unnecessary HTML or CSS code, which would make the wikitext confusing). Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it. Otherwise, remove the template from all pages that use the template. However, do not delete the template first – this breaks links and will cause a swathe of red links, requiring a lot of cleanups.

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:

March 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago141 comments14 people in discussion

Montefeltro

[edit]

This was nominated in 2013, and the nomination failed. More than 12 years later, this article is still a waste of space. It links two articles, but has no description, incorrect coordinates, and a long list of red links. While in theory it could possibly be an extraregion article, it isn't one, and no-one is will to make something of it. This article is of no use to readers. There is no content to merge to other articles, and no obvious place to merge it. It is time to delete it. Ground Zero (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would say to redirect it to the parent region and give it a quick mention there, but of course the problem is that Emilia-Romagna is in a different parent region from the other regions included in Montefeltro. I doubt it would make sense to mention it in the Italy article. I regret deleting the article, but like you, I struggle to see a good solution unless someone wants to write something substantive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia article includes a map showing it spanning three of our regions: Emilia Romagna, Marche and Tuscany. Oh, and another country, San Marino. I don't think a redirect to Emilia-Romagna is correct, as someone following the link would arrive at ER and find no informationabout Montefeltro. Further, it spans our top-level Central Italy and Northeast Italy regions. The article is so sparse that there isn't even any descriptive text to use to make a passing comment in the Italy article. This actually a case of page creation vandalism. I don't feel the need to bend over backwards to try to keep a redirect here. If this were a valid travel search term, I think that someone would have added some kind of content to it at some point. Ground Zero (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think page creation vandalism is an overstatement. Italian WV has a similar article, which has Get in info and a list of castles in See, but they do have articles for 9 of the municipalities. It would just cross the threshold to keep if the Italian article was translated. AlasdairW (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
No-one suggested a redirect to Emilia-Romagna. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Policy page has:
Simply asserting that a page does not fit within our goals is not sufficient for a deletion rationale, which needs to reference specific policy.
This does make at least some sense as an extra region & the fact that Italian WV has a page shows that the term is in use. There is no good place to redirect to; Italy comes closest but is not quite right since the region includes San Marino. Pashley (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is a stub, in that it has no useful information and links only two articles. Under our stub policy, I could put a stub tag on it and then delete it after 7 days, but I felt it would be better to have a discussion about it. Is there any reason to keep it, beyond the procedural objection you make? Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the effort that Alasdair has put into trying to rescue this article, but it remains of no use to travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete and move the one useful listing ("Regional Park of Sasso Simone and Simoncello") to Pennabilli. I'd love to see an article (a travel topic or itinerary, perhaps?) about the castles, but considering the state of many of our articles from this region of Italy, I don't think that's realistic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep per Pashley

Hungry

[edit]

This one is just ridiculous. Would be more logical to redirect to food and drink but I seriously cannot ever think of a reasonable scenario where someone types this up. //shb (t | c | m) 01:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Speedy delete. See Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Redirecting_typos. Pashley (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would vote delete as a ridiculous typo. If kept, it should redirect to food and drink instead of Hungary. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Speedy Delete What kind of page is this? Also, per nomination. ~2026-69216-3 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Urugay

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Uraguay

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tajickistan

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Uzbeckistan

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Leosotho

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Leshoto

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Country

[edit]

A cross-namespace redirect (CNR or XNR) to Project:Country article template. Should redirect to Destinations instead, just like Countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Region

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Airports

[edit]

It currently redirects to At the airport. However, given the plural, it should redirect to Airport articles instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

'''Swiss German'''

[edit]

Pointless quotes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Angel of the North"

[edit]

Same as above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is a single point of interest. If we delete it, a search on the phrase will direct the reader to Gateshead. We shouldn't be creating redirects for individual POIs. Ground Zero (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Afghania (Pakistan)

[edit]

Was Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ever called "Afghania" in Western sources? AFAIK Afghania is Latin for Afghanistan. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment — Turns out, the name "Afghania" for KPK was coined by Choudhry Rahmat Ali while coining the name "Pak(i)stan" (Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan). Well, it's just a historical term with no importance for travellers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Alert

[edit]

Yes, there's a military base called Alert on the Queen Elizabeth Islands. But it could also mean travel alerts, or the Alert Bay. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wta

[edit]

Unuseful XNR. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

How often has it been used? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I would oppose deletion if it's been used a lot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is linked from 14 pages, including this one. 8 of those are talk pages. AlasdairW (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. In that case, I don't oppose deletion, although I doubt it's necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
In the last year, it's been clicked on/followed almost once a day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Then keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
[edit]

Unuseful XNR. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Verify my account

[edit]

Unuseful cross-namespace redirect, especially to a historical page. However, given the trends of age verification these days, there might be a project page on account verification if MediaWiki and major sister projects ever implement something like this. But delete this cross-namespace redirect for now. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Vienna, austria

[edit]

Miscapitalized redirect. Delete. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bnagalore

[edit]

A character transposition typo. No way more common than Banglore, which is a valid misspelling for Hindi/Marathi speakers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

April 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago23 comments9 people in discussion

West

[edit]

It's not strictly a vote for deletion, but I thought I would nominate my own created article for discussion, as it seems like a recreation of the previous Western world article deleted as per Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2020#Western_world. However, my article does not exactly qualify for speedy deletion, since my article is more traveller-centric and intended to cover the term "the West" as encountered by non-Western travellers. They might be interested to know about Western culture, travel the West, etc. Plus, despite its deletion, the terms "West" and "Western" are widely used in Russia, Ukraine, India, and other articles for the Western Europe+North America+Oceania stack, thus needing an article to briefly explain that meaning. However, as I encounter a 2020 VFD already, I think this article needs to be discussed for an updated consensus. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Keep but move to "The West" without a redirect It doesn't have anything to say about the compass point as a direction of travel, and the current title just confuses readers looking for any of the other destinations starting with "West". AlasdairW (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
That sounds right to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, a good solution. Pashley (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Move to the West, but leave a redirect or a disamb Purplebackpack89 01:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment — I want to avoid a dab page under West as the original dab page was deleted as part of Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2021#Cardinal point disambiguations (10 pages). So that's why I created West as an extraregion and East as a redirect to Asia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Ikan Kekek and Pashley. I oppose any articles, redirects, or disambiguation pages from ompass points. Move West to The West without a redirect, and delete East. Ground Zero (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
East could be made "The East" by analogy. "The Orient" should possibly also be a disambiguation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Come to think of it, "Far East" is the appropriate redirect, and not for Asia but for East Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete, for a lot of the same reasons that Western world was deleted. This isn't really a travel article. Of the small amount of content that is actually travel advice, most is overgeneralized and/or not unique to the West. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    At least one delete !vote I got for this. I thought it could act as a portal for those interested in visiting "the West", with links to actual travel articles. I tried framing it as travel-oriented as much as possible while not sounding like an encyclopedia article. It's not exactly overgeneralization, as many Western countries indeed impose severe travel/immigration restrictions on "third-world" countries, but not always the opposite. Also, even if the article is deleted, the use of "West" and "Western" in countries like Russia should be addressed, as this article is there to explain the meaning. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    There's some very gross and distorting overgeneralization. Do you think the problem in the U.S. is that right-wing Christianity is too weak? Is the U.S. part of "The West"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    If the overgeneralization cannot be fixed, it needs to be deleted, but I think the article could be useful, à la Travel in developing countries but much shorter, only somewhat longer than at present. –LPfi (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I like Alasdair's solution, move to "The West" without a redirect, for this one.
But there are a lot of complications here, arguably a slippery slope. "East" & "West" were used in rather different senses during the Cold War & there are other terms -- "Far East", "Eastern Bloc", "Orient", "Third World", "Global South" & likely some I have not thought of -- that all arguably rate redirects or some sort of disambiguation or extra region article. Pashley (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Christendom? Dar-al-Islam? Pashley (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
We do have articles like Latin America & Tropics & Sub-Saharan Africa is a redirect that survived a vfd attempt. Pashley (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Chibbalagudde

[edit]

Near-empty article with little-to-no real listings (listings like Sringeri are actually separate cities with own articles). No information on why travellers would visit this place. No corresponding Wikipedia article to improve this travel article. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge to the article for the nearest town and mention the temple and big river fish there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Universal Beijing

[edit]

Should be a listing, not an article. At most a redirect to a listing. Pashley (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discover


Powered by GetYourGuide