Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

(Redirected from Vfd)
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.


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.

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 ("~~~~"). List one article, file or template per entry.

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:

Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~


All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

* '''Delete'''. Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''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 notEdit

  • 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.


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:

Icon delete talk.svg

November 2020Edit

Prehistoric Wessex TrailEdit

In itinerary article that isn't an itinerary, but simply a list of POIs in no particular order, most of which are already listed in destination articles (those that are not, can and should be). It hasn't been substantially edited since creation in 2013, and doesn't exist as an itinerary outside of Wikivoyage-world. This could be a travel topic, but I would suggest deletion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment The first half of this itinerary is being sold as a Prehistoric Wessex coach tour for £755 next June. The coach tour order is close to that in the article, so it does exist elsewhere. AlasdairW (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I second Granger here, weak delete with POI redistribution. Ibaman (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Vila do BispoEdit

No content other than blatantly touting a local restaurant. The place has no notoriety and anything of relevance in the area is already covered in Sagres Tvdp77 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Sagres.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, redirect real places. And it's a normal listing, not blatant touting at all, except inasmuch as the article may have been created for the listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If redirect, redirect to Sagres. Redirecting to Algarve will mean that one clicks the link in that page and is redirected to the same page.Tvdp77 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
We would remove the link in that case, but point taken.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Western worldEdit

See the discussion at Talk:Western world; the bottom line is that this isn't a travel article. This type of geographic/historical analysis belongs at other sites than this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not a plausible travel itinerary or topic and if it's not explicitly racist, it's definitely racist-adjacent enough to make me very uncomfortable with hosting this material. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I've made my reasonings on Talk:Western world. Ibaman (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. I don't think it's a racist article, but I do think it's impossible to adequately discuss the concept of the "Western world" without bringing race into it, and that's beyond our scope.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't object in principle to hosting articles that are too wide in scope to cover in any ways other than broad "geographic/historical analysis" - we have articles on entire continents, for example - but Justin is correct that this particular one has too much sociopolitical baggage to justify. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot imagine someone sitting down to plan a trip for the purpose of exploring "the Western world". Ground Zero (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure whether the article should be deleted, since User:The dog2 has stated that Singaporeans do plan vacations wanting to visit a Western country and then pick Australia. However, I'm also not sure about the idea of having numerous links to it to explain what "Western" means when it's used in other articles (though maybe that's not harmful), and I would insist on deleting the statement that white South Africans are sometimes considered "Western", because that directly equates Western and white. However, I think we should address the claim that defining the word "Western" is "racist or racist-adjacent": If so, should we remove the word from all articles, and in that case, what word should we use to substitute for it? Whether we delete this article or not, I don't think we should put that genie back into the bottle. For the record, I think it's OK to use "Western", even though it's geographically inaccurate, and it's often clearer and more accurate than "white", let alone "European". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: If I may have a few words as a non-white person, I don't think the article in and of itself is racist. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap between "white" and "Western", but the two terms are certainly not congruent. I think the article is useful in a brief form just give an overview on the ambiguity of the term, and its potential range of meanings. Like in the scenario I had mention, say a visitor to China is feeling tired of Chinese food, and asks if there is a "Western" restaurant in town. You might well be directed to a Russian restaurant, and if you're from the US or Western Europe, this would be utterly baffling, and such and article will help to clear the air in such situations. In any case, extra-hierarchical region articles are meant to be brief, and the only one that has any significant content is the one on Latin America, so I don't see any harm in having something like this. The dog2 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
if I may digress a little about the Latin America article. I'm Brazilian, therefore Latin American; I'm also non-white. The article's Understand section begins like this: The term "Latin America" dates to propaganda efforts by French Emperor Napoleon III (reigned 1848-1870; the first few years as President) to exert French influence in the Americas on the basis of Spanish and Portuguese being languages derived from Latin just as French was. It's my personal reckoning that this term, however common, well-spread in all languages, and devoid of any racist overtones, is on its way of becoming obsolete in the medium run. I have never personally contributed to this article and don't intend to; there's no point of excluding Aruba or Jamaica or Belize or Suriname from the Americas, per ttcf, period paragraph end of text. However, I also reckon this article useful as disambiguation, if almost superfluous, in Wikivoyage, don't see any harm in having it either, and would not suggest its deletion, as of this time. Ibaman (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete upon further thought. Means very different things to different people and will never even be a coherent extraregion. Gizza (roam) 23:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Isn't that the point of the article (as explained by The dog2 immediately above): to tell that "Western" can mean a wide array of things (I myself have not yet made up my mind about whether the article is worthwhile, nor what it should include). –LPfi (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, that is the point of the article. But in my view it doesn't make sense for Wikivoyage to have an article devoted to analyzing the subtleties of a term like "Western world", "Global South", or "Third World". I don't think it's racist – it's just not a travel article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Granger: this might be appropriate as a Wiktionary entry, or a Wikipedia article (with references to reliable sources). Wikivoyage shouldn't have article to define terms. Ground Zero (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete At the most this could be a single sentence in English language varieties saying that "Western World" means different things to different people, and travellers should avoid confusion by not using it. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What about "Westerner"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
as I wrote on the article's talk page: how well do these oversimplifications actually serve the traveller? let's have as example our article on Indian cuisine. It will most likely never go beyond outline status, simply because the subject is too splendidly extensive to be properly summarized in the context of a travel guide. It's most obvious that peoples from the coast, the plains, the river valleys, the jungle areas, the desert and the mountains (to avoid mention of any non-geographical factors) must have very different diets, and it would be impossible and unfair to pick one regional style to describe as "typical". The scope is simply too vast. The scope of "western world" or "westerner" is even larger. Ibaman (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yet would you agree that "Westerner" is sometimes the word that's needed in a comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as Extra-Hierarchical Region Page or Disambiguation - I tried to see what we have done (if anything) to other similar regions. We don't have any redirect for Eastern World, but we do redirect Far East to East Asia. That's the closest equivalent, I think. As for other somewhat common world region types, we have a disambiguation page (or extra-region article) for Latin America, Arabia, The Tropics, China proper, Commonwealth of Independent States, Horn of Africa, Hindu Kush. Indochina and Mesopotamia are more historic, but so is Western world in some regards. Other world region classifications that we don't redirect/disambiguate/make an extra-region: Orient/The Orient or Sub-Saharan Africa/Black Africa. Don't know if this is helpful to anyone, but it could be. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Yes it is helpful. These are however (except Arabia?) more or less well-defined geographic areas. We used to have Latin Europe (extraregion, wannabe region), which shares some problems with "Western world", see the talk page and perhaps the article history. I believe that making Western world an extraregion (perhaps even a regular disambiguation page) would make those problems an eternal headache. So if we keep it, the discussion on the ambiguity and more or less common traits – not the precise area – should be the main focus. –LPfi (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
      • To add to ChubbyWimbus' list, we also have Middle America as a disambiguation page. I could maybe see "Western world" as a travel topic, though it would be an awfully broad one and, given what a loaded term it is in certain contexts, would have to be handled carefully. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete While it's not outright racist, there is an undertone of such when using this term. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • So what word should we use instead of "Western" and "Westerner"? Westerners are by no means all white. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Conflating "Western world" with "white world" is just ignorant. "Western" references EUROPEAN cultural and political influences and structures (specifically Western European). Just because Europeans are known historically to be "white" does not mean that "Western" means "white", just like "Bantu" doesn't mean "black" just because Bantu languages and people are of African origin. It's just false. These are not race words. Lots of so-called "white" countries are not part of the "Western world", such as Russia. Then to call it "racist" implies that the term not only means "white" but that it also suggests racial superiority or inferiority, which it doesn't. "Western" is a neutral term. There is no "undertone". If individuals believe that the Western world is superior or inferior to the rest of the world, that has nothing to do with "Western world" as a term. That comes from someplace else. I don't have a problem with consensus in favor of deletion for legitimate reasons, but I do have a problem allowing ignorance of words and terms or fear of people who are ignorant of the words/terms to dictate how we operate, which is what I feel the "racist" argument does. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
We agree. The racism in using the term, when it exists, would seem to me to be down to the intent or subconscious associations of the user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makes no sense in a wiki about traveling. Tvdp77 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)