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.

NominatingEdit

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:

===[[Chicken]]===
Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

CommentingEdit

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 (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.

ArchivingEdit

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

February 2021Edit

EstremaduraEdit

After trying to make sense of our Portugal hierarchy, I now lean very strongly toward deletion of this extraregion. Although used on other WV langage editions, including Portuguese, consesus at Talk:Portugal#Regions and Talk:Portugal#Regions again is that we use NUTS II regions as our first level of regional division. As this article is very sparse and contributes little to understanding the country, its regions, or its cities, I think it would be best for both travellers and editors to Delete. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I would tend to vote to keep. Extraregions don't have to have long articles. What's the disadvantage of keeping the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
It's poorly written and has been a target of edit warring recently. I can support keeping it if it can be rewritten with consensus. I'm willing to rewrite it and let others edit as needed, but I'm afraid that a certain uncooperative editor will revert it to his skewed understaning, as has already happened a few times. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
We can deal with edit warring by protecting the article. How likely is it that a reader would be interested in an article on this historical region? Even the Portuguese Wikipedia article is pretty short: if there isn't much to say about the province even in Portuguese, it probably isn't important for travellers. I prefer to follow the advice of lusophones on this question, but I think there may be a good argument for deletion.
@Ibaman: do you have any thoughts on this? (I don't know how familiar you are with Portugal.) Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Both the Portuguese WP article (above) and the English one at w:Estremadura_Province_(1936–1976) are 100% unsourced, though w:Estremadura Province (historical) is. This has no direct bearing on our decisions here, but can provide some clues and guidance. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Pending further discussion, for now I will vote delete. There are hundreds of former administrative regions around the world, including in Portugal, France and Germany. I think an extraregion makes sense where there are strong historical or cultural reasons for the region to form the basis for a travel itinerary. In this case, the evidence uis that there are not such reasons. It's just a list of destinations, which is of not useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Worth noting that this is cross-wiki disruption. Gomes000 has been brought to ANI, English Wikipedia's primary conduct dispute noticeboard, for heavily edit-warring the same article. I'm not yet familiar enough with Wikivoyage's deletion policy to be confident making a hard decision either way, but this doesn't seem to be a very relevant article to travellers, and it's clearly a magnet for negative attention. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)