(Redirected from Wikivoyage:Images for deletion)
Latest comment: 14 hours ago by Ikan Kekek in topic August 2025


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:

July 2025

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Meruleh was a former eswikivoyage sysop who had been involved in a lot of controversy. I believe she had her perms removed due to tool misuse, and was later blocked over there due to sockpuppetry. However, during her time as an eswikivoyage sysop, she did create a script called Serena which aimed to function like Twinkle. How effective this was – or whether it succeeded in its function – I am not sure.

There was a long recent U4C case involving Meruleh (and related sockpuppets) but the final result was her (and all sockpuppets) being globally locked (not banned, though). There's a few reasons behind this, but the main ones involve extensive sockpuppetry, abuse of user rights and extensive manipulation.

Given her extensive reputation for manipulative behaviour elsewhere, I do not trust that this script doesn't contain any malicious code. It's very likely that she had long-term plans to make this script more widely on this wiki but didn't get far. It is not used anywhere at the moment, nor is it linked anywhere outside this page and nothing of value is lost. However, the risk of some potential malicious code (maybe someone who knows Javascript more than me can check) is far too high given her extensive sockpuppetry and manipulative behaviour that led to the long U4C case – and even if it didn't, it cannot be maintained by anyone since she is globally locked. //shb (t | c | m) 12:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The title couldn't possibly be compliant with Wikivoyage:Naming conventions, and its content so far consists of bullet points and lists of red-linked buildings, mountains and "Cities and municipalities". User:Veillg1 is not a new user, and we've had a bunch of problems with their persistent disregard of Wikivoyage style and consensus before, leading to 2 blocks of 3 days and 2 weeks so far. They know what's wrong with what they're doing and continue doing it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We should also consider whether to nominate Joliette Regional County Municipality for deletion. We didn't agree to changes in the regional breadcrumb structure of Quebec, and black Wikipedia-linked lists of "Cities" and "Municipalités" described as "a city" and "a town" are not useful, while the "Things to Do" subheading is one Veillg1 knows very well is not standard. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete per nom. We have tolerated Veillg1 going out of their way to blatantly disregard Wikivoyage naming customs and there is a limit to how much we can do so. Enough is enough. //shb (t | c | m) 21:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If there's a consensus to delete, I'll go along with it, but it seems worth asking if redirecting would be better. Pashley (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would normally be in favour of merging, but I don't want to have to wade through crap that has been dumped into this article like, to pick a paragraph almost at random, "Local museum institutions... have implemented measures to enhance heritage elements for the sake of preservation and public exposure." Ground Zero (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 2025

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 hours ago20 comments4 people in discussion

This itinerary has been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year, as discussed at Talk:U.S. Highway 395. According to our deletion policy, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. @Galtonova: has been absent from Wikivoyage since starting this article. Ground Zero (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm a keep, because it has enough information about the part of the route in California to be of use to a driver planning a trip. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Our deletion policy says: "Article entries should be deleted from the site when... they are itineraries that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year." This meets that definition. Ground Zero (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've done some work to improve the article. Granted, it needs more content to be of quality, but it should have a sufficient template to be worth keeping. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't it say they are subject to (implicitly possible) deletion through Votes for deletion? If deletion were automatic, we wouldn't discuss it here. It is highly precedented for outline-level itineraries that are of some use to be kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't say explicitly that deletion is automatic, so I wouldn't delete without discussion. At the same time, if an itinerary meets the criterion for deletion, I don't think it is a valid argument to say that we haven't always deleted the. Are you arguing for an exception to the policy in this case? On what basis? Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete, unless significant improvements – what I can read in the article in its current form is the same I can find elsewhere. SelfieCity's improvements did improve the article, though, but I'd expect a bit more. //shb (t | c | m) 03:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You really think it's of no use for a driver to plan? Sure, it needs descriptions for some of the place names Selfie City just added, but it's already somewhat usable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe it's me, but in its current state where it merely lists towns with no description, I would read the Wikipedia equivalent instead. //shb (t | c | m) 09:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The policy says that an outline should be deleted. So if it isn't usable.... Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why do we have discussions if deletion is supposed to be automatic? It looks like we need to have a policy discussion again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
And restarted here. You are remembering a previous wording of policy, I think. I am not arguing for an "exception to the policy". Reread the policy, please! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Here is the policy that I am referring to, copied and pasted from the current version:
Article entries should be deleted from the site when... they are itineraries that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year. Since just about any topic can be an itinerary, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. Template:Outlineitinerary should be used to tag itineraries at the outline level. Note that sufficiently famous, marked routes such as Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit are exempt regardless of the status or age of the article.
Nowhere does it say that "deletion is supposed to be automatic". But we have a policy that you don't want to apply in this case. That sounds like an exception to me. Ground Zero (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
We have to make the policy consistent. Let's discuss it on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
On second thought, I think "achieve some level of completion" covers not deleting itineraries that are of some use, even though at outline level. That's in the existing policy, which I think does not need to be changed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why do we include this in the policy: "they are itineraries that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year", if we mean not to delete them, but to apply a second, much more relaxed test of "achieve some level of completion"? It seems that "itineraries at outline status without being substantially edited within one year" is entirely meaningless in your interpretation. Ground Zero (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, they are still subject to discussion in votes for deletion. You're acting like opposing deletion of itineraries that are not at usable status, though arguably still of some use, is unprecedented and that no such itineraries have ever been kept, but you know better. I suggest you discuss the policy in the talk page thread I linked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will contribute to that discussion, in the morning, when I am not so tired. I think it is clear that there is a conflict between the "outline for a year" part if the rule, and the ""of some use" part of the rule. I a well aware that policy us not always applied consistently. That is not a convincing argument for not applying it.
My concern here, beyond the application of policy, is that not applying the "outline for a year" rule will lead to highway buffs creating outline articles for highways that don't have any particular historic or tourist value, but that link a lot of places. We should not encourage the creation of a bunch of low-value list articles. Ground Zero (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I surely respect your concern, but I would say that there's a difference between encouraging the creation of low-value articles and deleting articles that have some value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Meanwhile, I've done my best to add descriptions of the previously empty place names in Oregon. Maybe someone else would like to do Washington. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=5102662"