Latest comment: 13 hours ago by AlasdairW in topic April 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:

April 2025

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Blatant spam, would've speedied but I can't put the tag on the page, probably because I'm not autoconfirmed. (I stumbled across this page while patrolling EnWP for spam, so I hope I'm doing this right.) Pythoncoder (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I reverted Ikan Kekek's removal of this section and their speedy deletion of the page. I will remove the touting, but I think a user with contributions other than outright spam or vandalism should not have their user pages summarily deleted. The user may have been touting, but it seems at least one listing they added has stayed in detouted form. –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am one of at least several admins who routinely delete promotional user pages. Yes, even if the user in question made other edits (which were usually promotional, but not all of them always were). Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I, along with Ikan, also routinely delete spam or promotional user pages. Making edits is not a valid reason to keep spam userpages, and I'm with Ikan on this one. I'll elaborate more on Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout sometime later, but that's my brief 2c for now. //shb (t | c | m) 08:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:LPfi posted this edit summary but didn't add it to this thread: "users with contributions shouldn't have their user pages summarily deleted". To which I reply "nonsense." User pages that have spam or promotional content on them get summarily deleted, regardless of how many edits the user in question has, just as any purely promotional page would. It looks like we need to have a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK, folks, since we clearly need to spend time discussing this, please do so at Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout#When should promotional user pages be deleted? I surely don't believe in spending time on VfD discussing whether to delete promotional user pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
See the listing for The Fern Gardenia Resort in Palolem#Splurge for what remains of their contributions.
I think what I told in the summary is in my posting above. There might have been some edit conflict confusion.
Anyway, a user page telling about one's affiliation is allowed. Whether misuse of that right is grounds for deleting the page is up to discussion. OK, I will continue in the suggested thread.
–LPfi (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep I think this could be required for attribution, as the original user name "Yashvit" has been changed to User:(WT-en) Yashvit, and so the page should be kept for the yellow box at the top. The page can be blanked apart from that yellow text box if we want (the page is protected so only admins can edit). AlasdairW (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This was created by an anon user as "Brands hatch" & tagged for speedy deletion by User:Ibaman. I moved it to correct the capitalisation of the title & removed the speedy tag. Now I'm listing it here as one is supposed to do when removing a speedy tag.

I think it is now a speedy keep. This is a well-known car & motorcycle racing venue, famous enough that I (Canadian & not hugely a fan of motorsports) recognise the name, so obviously a tourist draw.

Ibaman asked "Is this a proper article]] or just a farm of touty links?" He's right that some listings are touty & need cleanup. Pashley (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some descriptions also appear to be copyright violations. e.g. that for Rising Sun Inn is taken word-for-word from the inn's website. Pashley (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Brands Hatch is a famous race track and hosting races as of today so it merits being included in Wikivoyage together with nearby restaurants and hotels. However per WIAA race tracks and other individual attractions don't get their own articles unless there is some exceptionally good reason. So maybe we should move the listings to Eynsford or rename this as an article for West Kingsdown, of course after the necessary detouting. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, keeping it as a redirect would be fine too. I considered suggesting that but did not see a good redirect target. Pashley (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Per w:Brands Hatch, it is a race track, but seemingly not a village, and I didn't see any listing in the Wikivoyage article that included some village of Brands Hatch in the address. Did I miss any? So yes to redirection to a listing for the track, but no to keeping this as a separate article. Also, I would suggest deleting every listing that includes the words "we" or "our" as presumably not only touting but copyright violation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree redirect to the article which contains the listing for this racecourse is best. //shb (t | c | m) 22:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=5055801"