|
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:
|
 |
March 2026
[edit]Ambiguous redirect outside Indian contexts, where it could mean the Associated Press instead of Andhra Pradesh. Yes, we don't cover news agencies here, but "AP" is still ambiguous even within Wikivoyage. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete It does not seem likely either as a search term or for linking.Pashley (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Convert to disambiguation as this is not entirely an uncommon phrase to use in conversation. //shb (t | c | m) 22:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Associated Press" isn't a travel term. We needed worry about it. We have a lot of acronyms (especially airport codes) that are redirects to travel articles without disambiguation pages. If AP is commonly used in India for Andhra Pradesh, then it is a valid redirect. But I defer to Sbb1413's local knowledge to answer that question. Ground Zero (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have no problems with the fact that "AP" is commonly used in India to mean Andhra Pradesh. But I fear whether it has some other meaning elsewhere (other than "Associated Press" of course, which you have pointed out not a travel term). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- If it does have another travel- related meaning, we can create a disambiguation page when someone identifies it. I guess I think that Andhra Pradesh is important because it has a population 25% larger than that of my home country, Canada. BC redirects to British Columbia, and NS redirects to Nova Scotia, both of which have a fraction of AP's population. Ground Zero (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Good examples. I'll now say keep. Pashley (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
A redirect with a misspelling of "monasteries". If it were monasteries in north east india, I would not object. But there's a misspelling in the current redirect. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete The redirect takes the reader to an empty See section. I would be happy to move it to the correct spelling if it went to some useful information. AlasdairW (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per Alasdair. //shb (t | c | m) 21:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Merge anything worth saving into Sacred sites of South Asia, then delete. Pashley (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- @AlasdairW, SHB2000, Pashley: Should Monasteries in North-Eastern India be deleted too? Here, "monasteries" is spelt properly, yet as Alasdair alluded, there are no monasteries mentioned in the "See" section of North-Eastern India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, delete. Pashley (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete both Although Monasteries in North-Eastern India did have a little content, it has been redirected without any merging that I could find. The one monastery that is mentioned doesn't have any info on Wikipedia. AlasdairW (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I have just expanded the "See" section to mention that one notable monastery in NE India. The section is just a summary of different types of attractions one can expect in the region, nothing more. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. //shb (t | c | m) 22:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No-one suggested a redirect to Emilia-Romagna. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep As there is some interest in having this article, I have added a map & markers and translated the See section of the Italian article. It is now 4 times longer than it was an hour ago. AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the towns those castles are in need to be mentioned and linked in each 1-line listing, and moreover, that is a long list in apparent violation of Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
London is clearly an English-speaking city, so non-English names shouldn't redirect here. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep It gets an average of 6 views per month, so it appears to help some of our readers. Is there somewhere else that it could be confused with? AlasdairW (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Non-English redirects are fine as long as they are in Roman letters. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per Ikan. Seeing "Londres" on the ground isn't particularly uncommon (particularly in Paris Gare du Nord and Bruxelles-Midi/Zuid for Eurostar services), and I don't think it's an inherently unreasonable redirect. //shb (t | c | m) 09:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Redirects are cheap & this is at worst harmless, likely occasionally useful. Pashley (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment — There seems to be a consensus for keeping certain redirects that are both non-English and non-native. But I think that should be on a case-by-case basis, similar to WP:RLOTE. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Based on a cursory look at that policy, I disagree and think it's in conflict with consensus decisions here in at least a couple of ways. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)