|
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]
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:
|
 |
April 2026
[edit]A redirect for Hamas was recently speedy deleted. Should this one go as well?
I'd say no, but it seemed worth raising the question. Pashley (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'd mildly support keeping it, but I agree that it's debatable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. It may have a section in the Islam article, but it is not a term that anyone is going to use in planning travel. I choose to spend my time here because it is a travel guide, and not an encyclopedia. Readers come here for travel advice. Let's be a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's pretty persuasive. I'd tend to agree, when you put it that way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per GZ. //shb (t | c | m) 21:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Anybody who wants to get information on the religion Da'esh relates to can find Islam without the redirect, and if their interest for Hamas comes from their intending to visit the Gaza Strip, they should find the relevant info there (or linked from there). Many ideologies and organisations have travel relevance, but to the extent they do, they should be presented in the context where they are relevant, and readers should not expect them having their own articles. –LPfi (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. It may have a section in the Islam article, but it is not a term that anyone is going to use in planning travel. I choose to spend my time here because it is a travel guide, and not an encyclopedia. Readers come here for travel advice. Let's be a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
May 2026
[edit]This article's entire existence was debatable when it was first created around 16 months ago. However, since then, it remains a largely unreferenced encyclopedic essay that's also mostly a vast overgeneralisation and an article that exists based on armchair urbanist YouTube channels (who also make content not bound to proper academic research). There's 16k bytes worth of content here, but much of it is just pure fluff and not really salvageable in my opinion. //shb (t | c | m) 11:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to say about this article. The topic is overbroad, but I think at least the section I created called "Basing yourself in a suburb to visit a central city" covers a real issue travelers deal with and should exist in some form on this site, but I'm not sure where. The listings for planned cities might be useful but in an article on planned cities, not one allegedly about suburbs. If we do rescue text, a redirect or rename is needed for attribution, but what do we do if we move those two sections to two different places, neither of which are really about suburbs?
- (Parenthetically, my edits are based mostly on a lot of personal experience, and the urbanist YouTube channel I have listened to most generally includes citations, but I agree that think most of the article is useless.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect we have several articles that overly broad, fluffy and better suited to Wikipedia than this site. I certainly agree that the Suburbs article lacks relevance for most travelers (even those looking to stay in a suburb rather than downtown). Mrkstvns (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and I definitely don't think we should have a "suburbs" article. What I question is whether a bit of the text is salvageable, if so to where, and what we then do in terms of a redirect or renaming. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I largely agree with Ikan Kekek. Some of this can be merged into Planned cities, and "Basing yourself in a suburb to visit a central city" can be worked into Sleep. The rest of this content is not useful for travel. I can't think of a good redirect target for "Suburbs", so I'm in favor of deleting it. Gerode (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- The problem is that "merge and delete" is not a thing on this site because attribution must be maintained in an article history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keeping the page around is not really an issue, at least not technically. One can point to the history of a redirect (merge and redirect is common). If we don't want to keep the page as a redirect, it can be moved to another name, such as Planned cities/Suburbs and edits where content is moved elsewhere can have an edit summary with a link to the version used. Permanent links (which I tend to write on the form [[Special:Permalink/5271573|Suburbs]]) do not depend on the article name, so moving the page later will not break them. LPfi (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- The problem is that "merge and delete" is not a thing on this site because attribution must be maintained in an article history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I largely agree with Ikan Kekek. Some of this can be merged into Planned cities, and "Basing yourself in a suburb to visit a central city" can be worked into Sleep. The rest of this content is not useful for travel. I can't think of a good redirect target for "Suburbs", so I'm in favor of deleting it. Gerode (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and I definitely don't think we should have a "suburbs" article. What I question is whether a bit of the text is salvageable, if so to where, and what we then do in terms of a redirect or renaming. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Could perhaps arriving in a new city or Travel basics be suitable for a merger (the basing yourself in a suburb to visit a central city bit)? //shb (t | c | m) 03:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Travel basics#Book refers to Sleep, which is reasonable, so the advice should probably be in the lead of Sleep#Types of accommodation or in a new section in that article. –LPfi (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Good point. //shb (t | c | m) 09:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- The sleep article clearly covers accommodation rather than sleep itself (with sub-articles such as second homes) and could be more elaborate on spending vacation in a suburb, in contrast to a city center or a small town. One way to handle crediting is to make a complete rewrite the relevant sections from the suburbs article. The architecture and planned cities can receive information on the history of suburban planning. Public transportation and urban cycling could also give advice on suburban environments. /Yvwv (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Complete rewrites to suit the new context may be good, but doing it just to avoid giving credit it not necessarily a good idea. If you want to use the material, it is easier to just use the material with credits and then edit it, split it up or whatever to better suit the context.
- Giving advice on public transport and urban cycling when it comes to suburbs have the main problems of this article: there is not much to say that isn't overly broad generalisation. Still, you might be able to point out possible issues and things to look for. I didn't find any good place to just drop that advice in; you may need to create a suitable context.
- –LPfi (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- The sleep article clearly covers accommodation rather than sleep itself (with sub-articles such as second homes) and could be more elaborate on spending vacation in a suburb, in contrast to a city center or a small town. One way to handle crediting is to make a complete rewrite the relevant sections from the suburbs article. The architecture and planned cities can receive information on the history of suburban planning. Public transportation and urban cycling could also give advice on suburban environments. /Yvwv (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Good point. //shb (t | c | m) 09:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Travel basics#Book refers to Sleep, which is reasonable, so the advice should probably be in the lead of Sleep#Types of accommodation or in a new section in that article. –LPfi (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect we have several articles that overly broad, fluffy and better suited to Wikipedia than this site. I certainly agree that the Suburbs article lacks relevance for most travelers (even those looking to stay in a suburb rather than downtown). Mrkstvns (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)