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:

October 2025

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 hours ago61 comments9 people in discussion

Old towns of Cyprus and Greece

[edit]

This article has been sitting for more than ten months as just a list of major cities with no information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Switching to a weak keep. //shb (t | c | m) 08:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your help, but in my view, this gets to the core of the issue. From a traveler's perspective, the article still doesn't answer any of my core questions: where are the key sites? How do I get to them? Why do these places stand out over other old towns in Greece/Cyprus I could visit? Can I visit all these sites in a week or a month? Are there particular locations I should prioritize? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Right, but I think there's enough content already not to delete, ergo keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The car-free destinations article has a list of destinations which could potentially include many of the world's old towns. We should have general guidelines for the cases where international lists of destinations can be useful, and when they are just a burden. /Yvwv (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
At the very least, they must be annotated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looking at Old_towns#Destinations I find that it consists of dozens of links to articles with titles of the form "Old towns of ..." & currently those links are all blue. Checking the talk page I see that this arrangement was arrived at after extensive discussion. So now I question whether we should delete any of these. Pashley (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old towns of Central Asia and the Caucasus

[edit]

Has also been sitting for more than ten months as just a list of major cities with no information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old towns of the Baltic states and Old towns of Eastern Europe

[edit]

Two more pages like the above nominations with no travel information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 04:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Loktak Lake

[edit]

Redundant to Keibul Lamjao National Park, which basically covers the same lake with the floating national park in addition. So, merge its content to Keibul Lamjao National Park. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • Definitely not delete! I do not know the area so cannot tell if lake & park should be separate articles, or one redirected. My guess would be that a park->lake (particular part to more general article) redirect makes more sense than lake->park.
I'd like to hear from @Haoreima: who wrote much of both articles. Pashley (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Speedy Keep The lake itself spans over a large area of natural sites and human settlements, covering shoreline regions of multiple towns and cities. On another hand, the national park is an independent entity with some of its geographical areas located under the jurisdiction of the lake. Lake >> National park, and not national park >> lake. Neither of these can be suitable to be merged into either topics. @Pashley Thanks for the reminder! :-) Haoreima (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that there is a lot of repetition between the two articles. How do you plan to avoid that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Lake focussed topics can be kept only in the lake article and national park topics in the national park. Encroached topics can be trimmed as separate articles exist. Some unavoidable common themes can be kept as such. Please feel free to trim wherever necessary. :-) Haoreima (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps would it make more sense to combine them in one article but use section headers within to distinguish what's in the lake and what's not? //shb (t | c | m) 08:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

At

[edit]

Yet another cross-namespace redirect to consider. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mos

[edit]

Another XNR, could be an actual place name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pf

[edit]

Another XNR, could be the ISO country code for French Polynesia. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

^ Delete. If we did need a cross-namespace redirect to Wikivoyage:Plunge_forward, which I don't think we do, then I'd prefer just "plunge". Pashley (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tout

[edit]

A rather astonishing cross-namespace redirect (XNR). Should redirect to common scams or similar. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

El

[edit]

Another XNR, could be the ISO language code for Greek. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems too confusing, as it means "the" in Spanish. Might be best to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discover


Powered by GetYourGuide