Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2026

← April 2026 Votes for deletion archives for May 2026 (current) June 2026 →

Da'esh

A redirect for Hamas was recently speedy deleted. Should this one go as well?

I'd say no, but it seemed worth raising the question. Pashley (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd mildly support keeping it, but I agree that it's debatable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may have a section in the Islam article, but it is not a term that anyone is going to use in planning travel. I choose to spend my time here because it is a travel guide, and not an encyclopedia. Readers come here for travel advice. Let's be a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty persuasive. I'd tend to agree, when you put it that way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GZ. //shb (t | c | m) 21:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anybody who wants to get information on the religion Da'esh relates to can find Islam without the redirect, and if their interest for Hamas comes from their intending to visit the Gaza Strip, they should find the relevant info there (or linked from there). Many ideologies and organisations have travel relevance, but to the extent they do, they should be presented in the context where they are relevant, and readers should not expect them having their own articles. –LPfi (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done, deleted. //shb (t | c | m) 23:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs

This article's entire existence was debatable when it was first created around 16 months ago. However, since then, it remains a largely unreferenced encyclopedic essay that's also mostly a vast overgeneralisation and an article that exists based on armchair urbanist YouTube channels (who also make content not bound to proper academic research). There's 16k bytes worth of content here, but much of it is just pure fluff and not really salvageable in my opinion. //shb (t | c | m) 11:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say about this article. The topic is overbroad, but I think at least the section I created called "Basing yourself in a suburb to visit a central city" covers a real issue travelers deal with and should exist in some form on this site, but I'm not sure where. The listings for planned cities might be useful but in an article on planned cities, not one allegedly about suburbs. If we do rescue text, a redirect or rename is needed for attribution, but what do we do if we move those two sections to two different places, neither of which are really about suburbs?
(Parenthetically, my edits are based mostly on a lot of personal experience, and the urbanist YouTube channel I have listened to most generally includes citations, but I agree that think most of the article is useless.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we have several articles that overly broad, fluffy and better suited to Wikipedia than this site. I certainly agree that the Suburbs article lacks relevance for most travelers (even those looking to stay in a suburb rather than downtown). Mrkstvns (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and I definitely don't think we should have a "suburbs" article. What I question is whether a bit of the text is salvageable, if so to where, and what we then do in terms of a redirect or renaming. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Ikan Kekek. Some of this can be merged into Planned cities, and "Basing yourself in a suburb to visit a central city" can be worked into Sleep. The rest of this content is not useful for travel. I can't think of a good redirect target for "Suburbs", so I'm in favor of deleting it. Gerode (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "merge and delete" is not a thing on this site because attribution must be maintained in an article history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the page around is not really an issue, at least not technically. One can point to the history of a redirect (merge and redirect is common). If we don't want to keep the page as a redirect, it can be moved to another name, such as Planned cities/Suburbs and edits where content is moved elsewhere can have an edit summary with a link to the version used. Permanent links (which I tend to write on the form [[Special:Permalink/5271573|Suburbs]]) do not depend on the article name, so moving the page later will not break them. LPfi (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps arriving in a new city or Travel basics be suitable for a merger (the basing yourself in a suburb to visit a central city bit)? //shb (t | c | m) 03:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Travel basics#Book refers to Sleep, which is reasonable, so the advice should probably be in the lead of Sleep#Types of accommodation or in a new section in that article. –LPfi (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. //shb (t | c | m) 09:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sleep article clearly covers accommodation rather than sleep itself (with sub-articles such as second homes) and could be more elaborate on spending vacation in a suburb, in contrast to a city center or a small town. One way to handle crediting is to make a complete rewrite the relevant sections from the suburbs article. The architecture and planned cities can receive information on the history of suburban planning. Public transportation and urban cycling could also give advice on suburban environments. /Yvwv (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Complete rewrites to suit the new context may be good, but doing it just to avoid giving credit it not necessarily a good idea. If you want to use the material, it is easier to just use the material with credits and then edit it, split it up or whatever to better suit the context.
Giving advice on public transport and urban cycling when it comes to suburbs have the main problems of this article: there is not much to say that isn't overly broad generalisation. Still, you might be able to point out possible issues and things to look for. I didn't find any good place to just drop that advice in; you may need to create a suitable context.
–LPfi (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done I've merged the content as appropriate and moved the page to Talk:Suburbs/Preserved, without a redirect. //shb (t | c | m) 01:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tiruvuru

A WV:BORING town in central Andhra Pradesh, India that squarely fails WV:WIAA. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huge town, or wasn't in 2011 - 18,567 per w:Tiruvuru. Would it make sense to merge it to the nearest town, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it could be redirected to the nearest town. The nearest towns are Kondapalli and Vijayawada, none of which are appropriate as it's not really an interesting town for travellers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How far is it from them? Your feeling is that the 4 movie theatres and hotel should not be listed on this site and the generic advice about trying to buy clothes is not worth doing there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything unique to Tiruvuru, like why people would bother going there, other than the villagers nearby. It doesn't have to be a tourist attraction. It could be local crafts, festivals, rituals, or something else. Regarding movies, you can watch Telugu films in any cinema in Andhra Pradesh or Telangana. Unless there's some local Telugu user knowledgeable about this town, I don't think it should be kept in its current form. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm fine with deletion, then, if no-one steps up to add more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Travellers may have their own reasons for visiting a place (travelling for work or visiting family), and if we have information about the facilities there, like the hotel and cinemas then that will help them. As it is well served by buses, is it used as a bus interchange? AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I'm troubled by the idea of deleting information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after some improvements by Ground Zero. //shb (t | c | m) 02:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • WV:BORING applies to stores, restaurants, bars, hotels, not towns. Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a town that has at least one place to eat and sleep is not boring. And when I searched for sightseeing in the town, there were many landmarks and temples that popped up. Any town that has a population of over 70,000 (taking into account the broader metro region) is very unlikely to have nothing of interest at all. Gizza (roam) 03:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the landmarks and temples to the article to show that it is worth keeping. Ground Zero (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: no consensus to delete. //shb (t | c | m) 01:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovakia

An article to link its successors Czech Republic and Slovakia. Redirect to Central Europe#History as appropriate. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two countries split in living memory, and I don't know how well that is known outside Europe. The Central Europe article would need to have details of the split added (in effect creating a redirect in a sentence). AlasdairW (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite definitely. Pashley (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: clear consensus to keep. //shb (t | c | m) 04:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the deleting admin if you want to put this through a mass delete script (if consensus emerges):

I have just moved these pages from main space to projectspace without a redirect. However, I fail to see the purpose of keeping these pages. There are far better sources on the internet to search for proper travel news, and all of these were created before Wikivoyage was forked. Additionally, as outlined in SPTF's (albeit very flawed) report of Wikinews, it's hard to maintain proper travel news on a wiki format that I do not see such a concept ever viable on Wikivoyage. //shb (t | c | m) 00:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support immediate deletion, and it's not impossible that someone might be inspired to revive the idea. I don't think we should exclude it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I've listed it here and not something for speedy deletion. But tbh I still don't think this idea is ever feasible, Wikinews couldn't do that in the 20 or so years it existed, and it had a much larger userbase dedicated to solely news. If it is revived, there's a very likely chance it will die once again. //shb (t | c | m) 05:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All things are temporary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but some things are more short-lived than others, and travel news would be one of those things. //shb (t | c | m) 09:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No telling. I don't really get what the advantage of deleting archives is, in any case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are the relics of Wikitravel we have long divorced from. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – These "travel news" are one of the relics of Wikitravel. Although I once endorsed covering travel news on Wikivoyage à la Wikinews, I no longer think it's viable in the long run. The closest we have to "travel news" currently are the global events, as well as the caution/warning boxes across country/region articles. I guess we should expand the scope of these for travel news coverage instead of writing new articles that will become obsolete quickly. Another thing can be done is the "In the news" section on the main page similar to Wikipedia, but covering only major travel headlines. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't that what Travel news did? My big problem with it, if Wikivoyage:Travel news/2012 is typical, is that all the links are red. But I don't think it's that hard to post selected travel news links to other sites, if anyone wants to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the links are red due to issues with Template:Newsitem, possibly due to later updates. If you look at the source of the article, there is a paragraph of news detail for each item.
Were any checks done for incoming links on these pages before they were moved? AlasdairW (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards archiving these pages instead of deleting them outright along the lines of Ikan Kekek. I also disagree with Wikivoyage being unable to revive a similar idea in the future. The Covid-19 pandemic article was very up to date for the 2-3 years where it was the key travel issue all over the world. And travel news is a smaller subset of all news, which was Wikinews' scope, so I don't think the comparison between community sizes is valid. Nor does it have to be exhaustive. Having 1 or 2 key events summarised in a paragraph a month collated onto one page is still useful even if it doesn't cover everything in the world of travel. Gizza (roam) 01:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could see adding links to some travel-relevant stories every week. Would anyone else like to do that with me? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know @Koavf links interesting stories in the pub now and then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that could alternatively work – I have higher hopes with this over writing or maintaining the news ourselves like what this page used to do or what Wikinews did, since we're only providing links, which is far lower maintenance. //shb (t | c | m) 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a good way to make the Travel Forum better. I don't think it will get much participation on its own page. Gerode (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, protect, mark as historical This is part of the foundation of the site going back to Evan/Maj. It's harmless to keep this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Justin here. Pashley (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as historical. Somebofy could reformat it so that the text is visible, but that is not important. AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this as no consensus. //shb (t | c | m) 02:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]