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 is a pretty pointless redirect. It's an unlikely spelling mistake, and in its entire lifetime, it only received four pageviews. The main issues with it are:

1. It's incorrectly capitalised
2. It's an unlikely misspelling given "piccu" does not reflect the pronunciation of "picchu"

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd support deletion, but let's hear from User:Hobbitschuster. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd hope to get a response from him as well. He hasn't responded to any of my pings even though he seems active on the German Wikipedia so he should get the notification. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can choose whether you want notifications from other projects. I have that feature off for some projects, and he might have as well. –LPfi (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. Not a reasonable misspelling. Ground Zero (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Delete The dog2 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Weak keep This is a reasonable misspelling. Commons has two images of birds in "Machu Piccu". A Google search showed that several other websites recognised this spelling. AlasdairW (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• OK, then I vote to keep, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Weak keep For an English speaker the misspelling may be unlikely, but we have many non-native readers. I don't know where the spelling would be pronounced like Machu Picchu, but somebody might remember only the odd "cc". –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  According to d:Q676203, the only language that uses "Machu piccu" as a spelling is Scots, but I highly doubt that would be the actual spelling – most of the articles on scowiki was written by someone who know zilch Scots. On top of that, most people who speak Scots also speak English. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Outcome: Four deletes, two weak keeps and one keep. Discussion left open for another seven days. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I haven't gone thru a full list of these articles, and I should make it clear that I am not proposing to delete all of their articles, but just the articles internally copied. As these were internally copied without attribution, they basically remain copyright violations as they break the CC BY SA 3.0 license and therefore I propose we speedy delete any article on sight created by these two users as copyright violations are not allowed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

On a quick scan, it looks like they are copying from WP, & violating the license by not giving attribution. Why not fix the attribution instead of deleting? Pashley (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

In a perfect world, it'd be ideal if we could just attribute and then it complies with the license, but not all of the articles they created were copied off the encyclopedia. Some of the articles they created were internally copied without attribution breaking the license, and some were just copied off external sources some of which are copyrighted. We don't need a duplicate for the most part, and we don't lose any travel info. But some of both their articles they created don't have that issue, and therefore I'm not proposing to delete those. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

When I look at OTim75's contributions, it seems they did attribute Wikipedia. All articles follow the same pattern: "article created" → "Added content. Part of content is copied from wikipedia [X] article" → "added content", "added content", "added content". It seems each article was written in 10–15 minutes (sometimes with a break for the night or for the day. This implies they haven't been searching for sources, but used the same ones. It also, of course, implies they haven't been writing their own texts, but copied rather directly. Anyway, the originals should be easy to find, and if they are free, attribution is easy to add, if not, that material can easily be removed. Thus, the question is simply whether these articles are worthwhile in current shape (for a traveller or as a basis of adding more information). Looking at Ilala, the article indeed looks useful. There are problems: e.g. Ilala and Babaloma use the same images (including a wrong-aspect pagebanner). Checking whether some of the information is copied from articles not directly related and thus possibly wrong (cf the Nigerian mobile phone operators) will take some work, but if we can trust the information, checking, fixing and tweaking probably is a lot easier than writing those articles from scratch. –LPfi (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

However, that's not the case with Paulboht tho. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, if I'm not mistaken, there needs to be a link in someway or another that attributes the original text to be compatible with the license. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

While I try to always include a permanent link in the edit summary when I use any significant amount of info from Wikipedia, my impression is that that isn't that common. A "from Wikipedia" (without link) is quite common. Of course, some do rephrase, and in that case copyright isn't necessarily involved. Anyway, we can include the attribution in a later summary or on the talk page. Do you know from where else the content is copied? –LPfi (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

In many cases, there has been text copied from other Wikivoyage articles (Get in information, and cell phone stuff), usually without any changes to reflect that it is about a different place. I have deleted that in many cases because there is no point repeating it. It is better to put a "see another article" link so that when the text needs updating, it can be done in one place only. Ground Zero (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re: LPfi's comment above: Credit should be given to the sources of content that's paraphrased, too. That's the academic standard of citation, and I always do my best to mention where I'm paraphrasing from, or even where I got information from that was simply locations on Google Maps and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes. That's what I try to do too, and it's also good for verifiability – which isn't necessary for us, but useful when doubts arise. Still, that's about good manners, while copyright is about legal requirements. –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Whilst it has a great history section, unfortunately, it has no travel content except in the § Get in and this can be nominated per the one year rule for itineraries. Much of this content could just perfectly do fine in a Wikipedia article. Could be merged in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park.

As another note, as someone who's done several US NRTs, I do not think they meet the "notable itinerary" criterion. They are no more well-known than pretty much most itineraries one could find. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: Either it gets rescued in the next two weeks, it gets merged (and I mean with real content added) to Big Island, or it gets deleted. The trail is too long to fit in any single region in the Big Island, and it can't be reasonably merged to Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, because compare the maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure anymore that it would be bad to keep this article. It has important background information, a map and a photo of the trail. I'd say don't delete, but a merge to Big Island would be acceptable - but I mean merging "Understand", "Get in," the thumbnail and either merging the map or substituting this link to a map. I think that would mean giving the trail its own subsection in Big Island#Do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Merge and redirect to Big Island. I'm currently on the Big Island and have walked portions of this trail recently, the trail passes through private property and land sacred to native Hawaiian people that are closed off to visitors making it almost impossible (and illegal) for a tourist to walk the trail completely. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep and expand. It is probably not possible to hike the entire trail now, but five sections (if I understand correctly) are open. I assume you could want to do those sections as one itinerary, with some driving in-between. If merged with sufficient information, it will overwhelm the current sections of Hiking and camping and Hiking destinations. This is not a personal itinerary by the definition of such: "arbitrary articles that aren't collaborative. While everyone can agree on what should go in [...]", "just duplicate content". It is quite well-defined, so adding content is easy, easier in an article with a standard layout than in an odd subsection, which should be breaked out anyway if made usable. @Tai123.123: is the description at the linked pages erroneous? –LPfi (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Which linked page? Do you mean the National park service one? Also I'd like to draw attention towards Ala Kahakai Kaloko-Honokohau Trail, an article on a specific part of the trail that should be merged into the page if its kept. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Redirect there. I didn't know about it. (And yes, I meant the official site). Most of the article under discussion here is Understand, which fits well in that one, and the rest can be included as a Nearby-type section. –LPfi (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I don't think redirecting to one specific part of the trail is good as the other sections of the trail are so far away. Tai123.123 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Those who search for the trail should be happy to be directed to a leg that can be hiked, and after the merge, there would be information there also on the other legs – not much but as much as we have. A redirect to the island is much less use. –LPfi (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the one year rule for itineraries. While it has lots of info in the prepare section, it's not really unique to the itinerary. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Question: Should the relevant content, though not specific to that article, be merged and redirected to the currently very bare Grande Randonnée article or some other article about hiking? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  That works, as the Grande Randonnée article has nothing but a list of redlinks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I think that might be reasonable. Clicking on a link in that list to find just what there now is in the article is disappointing. However, I think the current content is valuable when somebody is to add content. A working solution might be to remove the links from the current list and have subsections on the trails for which there is some information. When a real article is created, that article could be bluelinked from such a section, with a summary left there. –LPfi (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the one year rule for itineraries. And personal itineraries are not allowed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Keep. I think it has too much information for it to be really good to delete it. I also don't care whether an itinerary is "personal" if it could be helpful and describes a reasonable route. I looked at Google Maps for route information. It's not all direct, but there's a certain logic to going uphill, then downhill and repeating the process. I'll say this, too: If a decision is made to delete the article, we should check first to see if any of the content should be merged to the articles for the various places mentioned in it, including their "Go next" sections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep. While I'd say the Understand isn't complete and the route isn't described in detail it seems to me it provides enough of a base for planning your own itinerary (given the itinerary as described is viable). If various Get in and Get around sections on the regions and cities involved cover the route and describe the attractions, it might even be detailed enough as of now (I did not check them, but I doubt). The rule on personal itineraries is for those that stay in a shape where no one can reconstruct what the itinerary really is about, and those that are redundant with just listing the attractions in the cities involved. –LPfi (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep – not yet at usable status, as it's missing a "Get in" section, but has lots of useful information and seems like a promising itinerary article to me. I always thought the phrase "personal itineraries" referred to articles that listed a bunch of attractions in a single destination, not articles about actual itineraries from Point A to Point B with several stops in between. Note that, for instance, Hong Kong to Kunming overland is listed at Wikivoyage:Itineraries as an appropriate title for an itinerary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Comment. I would support moving the title to merely Chiang Mai to Chiang Rai in line with our standard for itineraries not to mention time spent traveling in the title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Doesn't matter to me. Shorten the title and then state in the lede that a 3-day itinerary is proposed or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the one year rule, and unfortunately lacks useful content. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Keep. I disagree that it lacks useful content. It has some background information, an itinerary and a map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Comment. It needs some rewriting. Kedarnath mentions some of the same waypoints and says the roads are bad, which should be mentioned. The Panch Kedar itinerary tells you to drive, but obviously you cannot do that by your own car, as you continue by foot and bus, never return, but then are still told to drive another leg. I assume you could get some local (taxi) to drive you, but that should be explained before the itinerary can be described as useful. One can develop the itinerary by some research and guesswork, which can probably be done in the two weeks, accompanied by appropriate warnings. You can probably get more information on the route locally, so somebody actually going might be able to use the article and complete it afterwards. –LPfi (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Van Diemen's Land was renamed to Tasmania in 1856, which is about a good 166 years ago – it has been called "Tasmania" longer than it has been called "Van Diemen's Land". Its usage still lingers around a bit, but almost never used in a travel context. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. This is not a guide for time travellers. This is not a search term modern travellers are going to use. Ground Zero (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Delete per others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Delete We have Van Diemen's Land Tour, so maybe a sentence should be added to its Understand to cover the occasional reader using an 1850 atlas. AlasdairW (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep. I don't see the harm. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep Redirects are cheap to and there's a U2 song with the name, so I could see someone searching. Why make it harder to find? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep – harmless and potentially useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep. Per the policy, "As a general rule, redirect pages should not be deleted". Nurg (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Keep. Pashley (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Keep as it does no harm. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Weak keep if the name is still occasionally used and it was the original name then its probably a valid redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Similar reason as with OTim and Paulboht. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Is that all of them? If not, which ones? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are several articles that consist mostly of text copied from other articles (cell phone info, Stay Safe, Eat, Drink) and from Wikipedia without attribution (Understand), with the listing for the headrest airport copied from another article. They don't have any unique travel information that is specific to the town, e.g.,

• Ikoro Ekiti, Ire Ekiti, Ijero, Oruk Anam, Uruan, Awkuzu, Abagana, Ita Egbe, Ikono, Mbo (by Grace789)
• Kirfi (by Altibaran)

If someone wants to turn these into travel articles, we could keep them. But as they stand, they are of no use to travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Then they should be deleted per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ogume, and Nteje (by Paulboht). Note that these don't represent all of the articles these users created, but only some of them. I think that these are articles that they created and did not get around to expanding before the competition ended. Ground Zero (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that rings true and is a down side of timed competitions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah unfortunately it's a sad truth. I feel like maybe I've now gone too harsh with the copyvios (which did leave a user from leaving), but unfortunately copyvios are a legal issue so it's important for us to cleanup the copyvios. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

To clean up yes, but that can be done by tweaking the wording (some work of course, so cutting down instead often makes sense, sometimes to the point of deletion), and in case of free content such as from Wikipedia, simply by adding the attribution. –LPfi (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's better to be safe than sorry – deleting is cheap, and easy to do while copyediting takes some work, and we have other priorities than copyediting copyvios which are not improvements to the travel guide in the first place. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I can't make any sense out of this. The article says that Yaza is at lat=10.29 long=13.27 in Anambra State, and it says that it is in Adamawa State. The only Yaza I can find in Nigeria is in Bauchi State at lat=11.44 long=10.23. The article provides directions for how to get to Numan, and the address of a hotel in Mubi, and of a bus company in Yola. This article would frustrate a reader who wants to travel their and does not provide any reliable information.Ground Zero (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sounds that way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete – honestly our "don't delete real places" is really not helping the travel guide. No information is better than incorrect information. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

So you say, but how? Who is arguing that this article should be kept? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete I think that the Yaza that is being referred to is a road junction at the northern edge of Muzi (lat=10.2946|long=13.2582, switch to the Mapnik layer to see it). The clue was in the mention of Adamawa State University, and looking at the map linked from the WP article there is a Yaza on the map. It could be merged into Muzi, but I don't think it is worth it for half a sleep listing. AlasdairW (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Listed articles:

• Odoro
• Oba Akoko
• Kajola
• Imeri

These are stubs that don't even have the adequate section headers required for an outline and do not help travelers. They were created by Tesleemah before they left the site because they were blocked for 31 hours due to copyvios but they have left these articles. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete -- this we can call "page creation vandalism". Ground Zero (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

These articles were created as part of a mass article creation by Ligocsicnarf89 back in late October. Whilst they have improved many articles, it seems they never got around to adding useful travel content to these ones listed and these don't help travelers.

• Toa Baja (delete link)
• Ciales (delete link)
• Las Piedras (delete link)
• Maricao (delete link)
• Peñuelas (delete link)
• Guayama (delete link)
• Jayuya (delete link)
• Lares (delete link)
• Las Marías (delete link)
• Utuado (delete link)
• Salinas (Puerto Rico) (delete link)
• Juana Díaz (delete link)
• Cabo Rojo (Puerto Rico) (delete link)
• Humacao (delete link)
• San Sebastián (Puerto Rico) (delete link)
• Maunabo (delete link)
• Hormigueros (delete link)
• San Lorenzo (Puerto Rico) (delete link)
• Guayanilla (delete link)
• Coamo (delete link)
• Lajas (delete link)
• Gurabo (delete link)
• Naranjito (delete link)
• Patillas (delete link)
• Orocovis (delete link)
• Yabucoa (delete link)
• Sabana Grande (delete link)
• Juncos (delete link)
• Santa Isabel (Puerto Rico) (delete link)
• Vega Alta (delete link)
• Vega Baja (delete link)
• Comerío (delete link)

Some of these don't even have an {{IsPartOf}} template nor an article status template. I am happy to withdraw them if some travel content is added and these articles are improved. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Delete -- these are not travel articles, and I suspect copyvio given the number of articles created in such a short time. Ground Zero (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

By the way, there's more articles that have a byte count lower than 1200, which I have not listed, most of which only have one or two sentences in another section and we may need to do a copyvio check for those ones because they too were created in such a short period of time. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Toa Baja has had some work done on it by User:The Eloquent Peasant, who is from Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, some of it is directly copied from w:Toa Baja, but I'd suggest allowing some time to work on that article and not deleting it, and I think the use of the "wikipedia" template on the talk page can address concerns - copying a list of attractions isn't really bad copyvio, anyway, and hopefully, the list can be filled out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's stubby and has no useful travel content in it. It's also remained as it is for almost two years now. Happy to withdraw it if some travel content is added, but the article cannot stand the way it currently is. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Redirect to Golden Week holidays in China, which is a much more useful article. CNY is celebrated around the world, not just in China, but this article is not informative. Ground Zero (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, that's the solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I too agree that we should now merge it to Golden Week holidays in China. I wasn't aware that we had that article when I first nominated this, but it's a much better solution than deleting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply