Votes for Deletion Shortcuts: WV:VFD vfd 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 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 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 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 a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it. 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. Archiving 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. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion. If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected. See also: Deletion log Votes for deletion/Archives - the VFD archives index page Votes for undeletion Category:Vfd - A page that collects every image and article that is currently tagged with the vfd template.

This was created by a user with only one edit over a month ago. This doesn't have an article template and this is just a transport route that fails WIAA. Tai123.123 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's a perfectly reasonable idea for an itinerary. I wouldn't support deletion, and we normally give itinerary articles a year before they face deletion nominations. If there have been no substantive edits by then, it might make sense to merge and redirect to Izmir then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Merge to Izmir. This is not an itinerary; it is "Get in" information. Wikivoyage:Itineraries says "An itinerary is a guide for traveling along a specific route through several destinations or attractions, giving suggestions of where to stop, what to see, how to prepare, etc." This article does not attempt to do that. A drive-by contributor put the information in the wrong place by creating a new article. We shouldn't keep it in the wrong place for a year because of that. It is better to put the up-to-date information where readers will find it. Ground Zero (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wait -- Ikan Kekek is planning to work on this. He should be given time to see whether this can work as an itinerary. Ground Zero (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Merge per Ground Zero. Most of the information should probably be merged to Izmir#Get in, but some should possibly be merged to Istanbul or Eskişehir. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Striking my vote; happy to give this article some time and see where it goes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Merge. Personal itineraries are not allowed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Personal? That's like saying New York to DC or Rome to Milan are "personal itineraries." I think the other arguments above are stronger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The above arguments are much stronger for this particular attempt, I'm just covering all bases. Istanbul to Izmir shouldn't turned into an itinerary, because they're two arbitrarily chosen cities that, if the article were to be developed into a decent attempt at one of our itineraries, would be linked by a personally-chosen route with calling points included or omitted at the whim of the author(s) (the same would be true of the examples you gave, btw). It is my understanding that an itinerary linking two arbitrarily-chosen (by a Wikivoyager) points on a map always constitutes a personal itinerary. This is in contrast to a real-world itinerary that has an attested route and start, calling abd end points, e.g. the Trans-Siberian Railway, the London South Bank Walk, Route 66. I hope that makes my point clearer.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's an elaboration, yes, but I don't agree with it, when there are obvious, standard routes. That would be the test, if we are going to use one (and I'm skeptical about this whole line of objection, anyway, as it has been overbroad in the past). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's probably an argument for another day 🙂.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

If the article had a string of points of interest along the way from Istanbul to Izmir, then it would be a reasonable itinerary. As it stands, there is no more reason to think there is an itinerary to follow between these two cities that any other pair of random but proximate cities. Ground Zero (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The "By train" and "By car" sections have embryos of itineraries. I don't see the urgency in redirecting, let alone deleting this stub. Perhaps someone will decide to make this article into a more fleshed-out itinerary in the next 11 months or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not proposing to delete information, but to put it somewhere where readers are better able to find it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Questions: Folks, do we or do we not allow itineraries a year before we nominate them for deletion? And do we have different rules for non-vandalistic IP users than registered users? Finally, who up and changed these rules without any general discussion that led to a new consensus? (And lurking in the background somewhere, why is a redirect argument appropriate to entertain on this page, rather than speedy keeping the article and continuing the discussion on its talk page?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The premise of this question is that this article constitutes an itinerary. As I've explained above, I disagree with this premise. I don't think that it is appropriate to discuss the rules for itineraries as part of this discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

What do you call this, then?

"If you take the morning shuttle, you will have time to explore Eskişehir's museums, art galleries and small old town district before boarding the daily evening Izmir Blue Train. Izmir Blue Train leaves at 11.15pm with Eskişehir Train Station (train station) to chug to Izmir's Basmane Train which takes 11.5 hours."

And this?

"The fastest route through Bursa is 478 kilometers and will take approximately five hours without interruption. However, it would be logical to deviate from the highway in Soma and visit the Roman ruins in Bergama along the way and continue south from here to İzmir. This will make the total length of the trip 496 kilometers, which is still very doable in one day. However, in order not to rush to explore Bergama, you should set off early in the morning.

If you want to take a more circuitous route and drive along the Aegean coastline for a few days, overnight stops will be Çanakkale (for Gallipoli Peninsula and Troy) and Ayvalık or Bergama for Bergama."

Are those just "Get in" routes from Istanbul to Izmir, or are they suggested itineraries, though not fleshed out in detail? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan here. This could be a reasonable itinerary; it isn't yet, but that's not a reason for deletion.

Like Hong Kong to Kunming overland it covers travel from a major transport hub to a popular tourist destination, with some info on interesting places between. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Pashley (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's fair enough. Maybe it's sensible to add the up-to-date practical information to the destination articles, and leave this article for a year to see if it develops into a real itinerary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The few comments about sights to see along the way really don't make this an itinerary. Those comments could be made about the trips between any two cities. I don't see anyone jumping in to say that they want you develop this into a useful itinerary article, only that they think someone else might do it. I don't think this is a good use of time. Ground Zero (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

By policy, it should be given a year. We now want to have Vfd discussions of embryonic itineraries after 1 month, and that's a good use of our time because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

If we will eventually have to deal with this problem why put it off for 11 more months. It seems like no one has developed it anymore in the last month so I doubt it will grow in the coming year. Tai123.123 (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Because we always "put these things off" for a year by policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm very busy this week, especially between now and Wednesday. However, I'll try to add a bit more structure and some internal links soon, if it's worth my time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Following policy is a good thing. Everyone who knows about the one-year rule should be allowed to trust that it is followed. One should be able to go on a trip assured that one can continue one's work on return, without the hassle of asking for undeletion. It might be unclear whether this is an itinerary, but let's err on the side of caution. –LPfi (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is not a case of a regular contributor being able to count on the rules, but rather of a one-time visitor who dropped a bunch of information and then left. (I would hope that a regular contributor would use a draft space to start a project that they know they couldn't finish in a reasonable time, but even if they didn't, I think we'd take less immediate action.) But as Ikan Kekek plans to work on this, we should not take any action on this to give him time to work on it. Ground Zero (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Keep for now following the 12-month rule. It can revisited 11 months later and merged into Izmir if it's not up to standard. Having said that, there is already a solid amount of information. It's just not formatted properly, making it look worse than it actually is. And the 12-month rule applies to articles started by both newbies and experienced editors. Gizza ^(roam) 02:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I would support merging to Izmir as commented previously because this is a policy, not content quantity issue, and therefore shouldn’t be subjected to the 12-month rule. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the logic in your position. Wouldn't it be the case that because the policy is that itineraries have 12 months to exist before they can be nominated for deletion, we shouldn't even consider this for another 11 months? Besides, when did you look at the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep not one year yet. I'm ok with merging though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think I've finished my current round of edits on this article. Let's please have a discussion at Talk:Istanbul to Izmir#Structure and put this deletion nomination to bed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Delete, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Please read Talk:Coca (Ecuador)#Copyvio from Wikitravel, but I'll copy the opening post here:

There appears to have been large-scale copying from Wikitravel. This Wikivoyage article was started in 2017, so the fork couldn't account for the amount of identical content to Wikitravel. Compare this 22:23, 18 August 2017 version of the Wikivoyage article with this Wikitravel Revision as of 22:21, 18 August 2017. In addition, a listing tag was used in the linked Wikivoyage version, years after that format had been deprecated, and I literally changed a "Contact" heading to "Connect" within the last 10 minutes or so. What should we do about this? Vagabond turtle last contributed in 2017, so I don't think we'll hear from them on this topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd add that we may need to take a look at other articles Vagabond turtle started on this site. User contributions. The other articles they started are Conceição de Jacareí, Pantoja, Yasuni National Park; I think that's it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Special:Nuke/Vagabond turtle. (nuke all the pages they've created. Unless they give attribution, it remains a copyvio) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pages up for deletion:

• Monte Alegre
• Yasuni National Park
• Pantoja
• Conceição de Jacareí
• Coca (Ecuador) (already mentioned above though)

list from X-tools

As Ikan mentioned, these pages were copied from Wikitravel without attribution, and until they give attribution, it remains a copyvio. Since this user last edited in 2017, I don't think we'll be hearing anything from them anytime soon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Question: why not keep and give attribution to Wikitravel in some form? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  We could, but is copying from Wikitravel even allowed? In a legal sense, you could, but Wikivoyage:Wikitravel discourage such copying? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

What was the lawsuit about? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lawsuit if no attribution is given because that's a copyvio. It's unlikely though that'll happen. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Or, we could work on these articles and rev del Vagabond turtle's edits. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the edits by Vagabond turtle remain in the following versions, which should therefore all be revision deleted unless we provide attribution. If the WT articles still are licence compatible, then copying content is allowed, provided we strictly follow the licence. We try to avoid copying for policy reasons: we don't have much interest in having to attribute WT, we risk a lawsuite if we are sloppy with the licence (for other contributors following the spirit is enough) and duplicate content has search engine optimisation issues. By deleting the articles, readding what wasn't based on WT, and complementing with content from WP and own research, we eliminate the concerns. –LPfi (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. On that basis deletion seems reasonable. But if we then re-add the material that wasn't based on WT, we would need to include attribution to the editors who originally added it here, right? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

We could also work on it fresh, just acting like the article had never existed before and/or translating them from eswiki. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing to hinder one from creating it with an edit comment on it being based on work by x, y and z. I'd blank the article, recreate from scratch using Wikipedia and own knowledge, then check whether there is something worthwhile missing (before doing extensive research), perhaps using the diff text instead of the article text, add that attributing the old revisions, citing the authors, then revdel anything before the blanking, and then add things based on own research to complete the article. –LPfi (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Obsolete and no longer used unless I'm missing something. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Delete per nom. It doesn't pook like it was ever used. Ground Zero (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I think it may have been used when changing the look of the main page during the migration to Wikimedia, which would have made sense in 2013, but not now in 2025. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Could someone explain to me what the point of this ever was? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Ikan Kekek I wasn't here back in 2013 so I have no idea, but see my comment above as to my prediction as to what was the purpose of this message. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I guess. So delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Neutral point of view" is not a thing on Wikivoyage, only on Wikipedia, so it makes little sense to have this redirect in namespace 0. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Delete per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
• I'm not sure. It makes sense to redirect Wikipedians who are used to a NPOV to Wikivoyage:Be fair, so they can see the difference. I'm inclined to keep this redirect and add one that spells out the words in the phrase, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  If that's the case, then it should be moved to Wikivoyage:NPOV without a redirect (which we already have). Namespace 4 is a much better place to keep this redirect than namespace 0 (mainspace). A similar reason to why we don't have the redirects AFD or RfD in mainspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agreed on the proposed move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

However, WV:NPOV already exists, so I guess this isn't needed anymore. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, then delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This isn't a disambiguation that's travel guide related but what would rather belong in a Wikipedia disambiguation article. There isn't a town/village/city etc. called "White House" and the one in Espangol is a proper name – nobody will be wanting to search "White House" in English to get to that place. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• This is a complex one. I think it's a reasonable search term for someone looking for tourism information to the US White House. There's a good chance it could be for the other destinations, although I know less about them. Given we don't have articles on individual destinations, it's reasonable to host either redirects to the locales they're in (which we do for most cases) or disambigs when it could apply to several. The question here is how many it applies to. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
• I think Vaticidalprophet is on the right track. My initial instinct is to make this a redirect to Washington, D.C./West End per wiaa (which gives Taj Mahal as an example of an appropriate redirect). But are the places in Virginia, Tennessee, and Jamaica significant enough to make this worth a disambiguation page? I don't know, but I notice that we used to have an article on the town in Tennessee. Either way, don't delete. I would remove Moscow and Casablanca though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  ok, so my insights would probably to revert to Special:PermaLink/3582923, and then add a hatnote in Central Tennessee saying

  White House redirects here. For the White House in the District of Columbia, see Washington, D.C./West End

  Does that work out? Unfortunately, that leaves out the ones in Virginia, Tennessee, and Jamaica so... a tricky one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I am surprised that the disambiguation page doesn't list Whitehouse (Ohio). Any traveller hearing Whitehouse spoken wouldn't know that it is one word. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply