Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2021

March 2021 Votes for deletion archives for April 2021 May 2021


I created this page a couple of weeks ago and am the only person to edit this page. It contains next to no information about the town and I don't think it is necessary to have this page on Wikivoyage. 16:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Our policy at Wikivoyage is not to delete articles about real places. If Katzenelnbogen were merely a dot on the map of minor importance, it might be appropriate to redirect it to the nearest important town, but judging from its article on the German Wikipedia, there are a few visitor attractions in town. So in this case it's okay to just leave the article as is, and someone will eventually fill in the blanks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I know due my history teacher being enarmored with that trivia fact that Katzenelnbogen was also once the name of a sovereign (or close to it) polity within the HRE... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


Nominated due to zero information about the location itself, and only a routebox at the bottom. It doesn't seem noteworthy and/or needs attention. Pirate-Prototype (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Kisa to Boxholm following the Malexandermorden trail by carEdit

This is an itinerary that's been on my radar for a bit, because it's been at outline status for a long, long time. It was written in 2004 by an IP and has been mostly untouched since. It's a very niche suggestion regarding a crime that, while quite high-profile in Sweden at the time, is unfamiliar to the bulk of the English-speaking world and seems to have eventually fallen out of the cultural consciousness even in its homeland. Our deletion policy for itineraries says we should be taking a closer look at this, and I don't see much realistic potential for its improvement at this point. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless someone knowledgable is inspired to take over, then the WV:Itineraries#"One year" deletion rule is very clear on this: delete.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Not very useful without a map. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete I don't think we should have itineraries inspired by violent crime that happened within living memory. AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The incident is indeed well-known in Sweden, and notorious crime scenes could deserve a listing in history of justice or similar articles. But the only locations notably connected to the event, are the bank and the murder scene. The experience of driving along the escape route is unlikely to attract an international audience. /Yvwv (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete SHB2000 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WV:Itineraries#"One year" deletion rule. AnotherEditor144 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Great Alpine RoadEdit

Originally started by en.wikipedia admin Evad37, most of the content is just copied from enwiki (written in edit summary). It doesn't explain what's unique about the route. Additionally, I've had to demote it from outline to stub as it lacks the content bit in the Drive bit, which is the most important bit and the itinerary outline. I have little understanding and no substantial improvements were made after 2015 after the first contribution by the admin. Not only do I have little knowledge on it, but the article would only be useful if a Victorian or someone familiar with the area substantially edited it due to the lack of guidebooks available.

Additionally the WV:Itineraries#"One year" deletion rule would definitely apply for this. SHB2000 (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit as at 1950 AEST 23 Mar: Does User:LivelyRatification have any knowledge of this route. Considering that they're from Melbourne and made Stratford to near guide status and the GAR is close by? SHB2000 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I know of the GAR but never driven down it. I don't think I could improve it much apart as I'm not that familiar with it. In that case, it's probably worth deleting if it can't be made into an outline. --LivelyRatification (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)--LivelyRatification (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I've only been on 2km of the GAR (section here [1] to have lunch which i never ended up having.). No guidebooks or info boards. I guess, until I drive down there, the article serves no purpose. SHB2000 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this a "sufficiently famous, marked route", cited in Wikivoyage:Itineraries as being exempt from the one year deletion rule? I've understood these should mostly be left sitting around until somebody takes their time to improve them, until there is some specific reason to delete them. –LPfi (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It cannot be improved further, and a traveller will find this useless as everything here is what's on the road sign. Both are useless. SHB2000 (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Why can't it be improved? By somebody who has driven the route, or who finds a guidebook, or whatever. I suppose, when that user turns up, it is more likely they improve the route if there is an outline in place. Also the "centres" and "attraction" lists can help somebody planning a trip to search for information. –LPfi (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Because very few people have actually been on this route. SHB2000 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I suppose many of the people going to the Victorian skifields drive along the route. Some of those could write a description about the parts they use. And locals? Don't they use it? And why market it as a tourist road unless there regularly are tourists driving it? It might not be that common a tourist destination, but surely there are some of them? –LPfi (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The GAR isn't marketed very well except on VicRoads signs. Additionally, many who go to the ski fields go via Delegate; not the GAR. SHB2000 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Not a sufficiently famous, marked route. AnotherEditor144 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Stubs created by User:AnglaisEPEdit

On 17 March, this new user created a bunch of stubs in this format: "Gaillac is in Region name." The user has not responded to talk page enquiries. Of these, only one has had further work done (Salvagnac). The remainder are nominated for deletion, but I will withdraw the nominations of any articles that have useful content added during the period of the deletion discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The one article has indeed got content. I see no use to hurry deleting the others, as the user may well work on them one by one. As long as the work is ongoing (with possible reasonable breaks) I would leave them alone. –LPfi (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Partially Oppose - I initially started to create plenty of stubs until User:ThunderingTyphoons! game me advise to work on it one by one. We may as well give this advise to this new editor. SHB2000 (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
As noted above, "The user has not responded to talk page enquiries." If (s)he does return the messages and start working on the stubs, or if someone else decides to work on one or more them, the relevant nomination will be withdrawn, just as the one for Salvagnac was.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe wait for 2 more weeks. SHB2000 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
14 days is the normal period a VfD nomination is open for, so that works.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
We could get an editor from the french wikivoyage to come over and give their knowledge about it here. SHB2000 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so looking at fr:Tarn, there is a decent article for fr:Lautrec, which would easily count as usable on en.wikivoyage, and could be translated. fr:Gaillac and fr:Cordes-sur-Ciel have a small amount of content (mostly 'See' listings), and are outlines. Castelnau-de-Montmiral and fr:Puycelsi are empty skeletons like here. The others created by AnglaisEP don't exist as articles on fr.wikivoyage.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest we keep Tarn and Lautrec but delete all the others but translating the two with my terrible french. SHB2000 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if the unregistered editor who added content to Salvagnac is AnglaisEP. I don't know if there is any connection between that article being nominated for deletion and content being added to it. I am hoping that this nomination will nudge AnglaisEP to talk to us to let us know their intentions. I have posted a comment on their talk page encouraging them to engage with us. As someone else has pointed out, we have a long history with new editors who create a bunch of stubs then disappear, so we should delete these if nothing happens, but let's hope content is added so that we don't have to. Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I've left a request in Lautrec. SHB2000 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I've started translating Lautrec and would appreciate it if other French-speakers could muck in.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Google Translate is very effective in translating European language. In the Chrome browser, you can enable automatic translation, then copy and paste. It it still avoid idea to review the English for errors. Ground Zero (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Ta. It's not the translation that takes the time, though, but rather that the original article hasn't used the listing template much and also has mostly omitted contact details for attractions etc.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep. Speedy keep for that article, and thanks for your work, AlasdairW! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay. I did not know how to answer your messages. I'm an English teacher in France. The new categories were created for a class project. My students have made some research about their village in France. They are going to complete their articles today... I'm sorry for this misunderstanding and thank you for your work AnglaisEP (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Then what was the reason for you not responding to Ground Zero's messages? SHB2000 (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@AnglaisEP: Very sorry about the misunderstanding. You might want to create a userpage to make it clear you're an educator. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
AnglaisEP: I am very glad to hear that your students will be working on these articles. We will not delete any articles that they are working on. I look forward to seeing the results of their work. Ground Zero (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hope it'll work well and I'm looking forward to articles all over France which should help me when I visit France in 2023. Merci et Au revoir,SHB2000 (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
AnglaisEP, could you please have a look at Wikivoyage:Listings and ask your students to use listing templates instead of describing restaurants and hotels in prose? We need specific information on their street addresses, phone numbers and URLs at a minimum. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best during this week-end to add more specific information. But it will take some time, I have 48 students... I think I did not realize the amount of work when I started the project. They are young and some of them are English beginners, so I really need to read through their work to correct some mistakes. I'll do my best, promise!AnglaisEP (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We will all be happy to help you; don't worry, and thanks for assigning this! We love having students add information here and hope some of them will get hooked on editing here and stay on their own time afterwards. Just let us know what we can do to help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
That is how I first edited Wikipedia, got hooked, but regret editing unregistered and now I'm done and over with Wikipedia. SHB2000 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion suspendedEdit

As AnglaisEP has advised us that students will be working on these articles, the nomination for deletion should be suspended until the end of their project. I hope that all of the articles will be developed and we can withdraw the nominations altogether. Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I was getting into editing Lautrec, so it'll be hard to step back for a while, but hopefully the student who edits it will actually have some first-hand experience--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@TT, I will still fix gramatical errors on their articles (which I've done for Lagrave) as don't forget, this is a travel guide and we don't want the traveller trying to read chicken scratch. SHB2000 (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. At the end of the project, we can decide whether some of the articles might be better placed as redirects, but let's help the students make the articles as good as they can be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the whole point of the exercise to try out their English writing? Granted, there are a lot of grammatical errors, but shouldn't the teacher be spotting them and suggesting corrections to the students herself? If we start correcting what they're doing, particularly at a language level, there may not be much of the students' work left by the end of their exercise. Perhaps at least check with AnglaisEP first whether she wants us to help out and if so how? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this has already been checked. Look at discussion on User talk:AnglaisEP. But it could be further clarified: AnglaisEP, do you want us to hold off on certain kinds of edits to the articles your students are working on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't we move the articles from mainspace to userspace for students? This is a travel guide, not a learning website. AnglaisEP et al. are better off at Wikiversity. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 08:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Question: Shouldn't we move the articles from mainspace to userspace for students? Answer: Maybe, but that's not essential. As for the rest of your remarks, I strongly disagree. We've welcomed students to this site several times, and it's been beneficial in increasing coverage of several areas of the world (the Seoul area, for example). And besides, all new users have learning curves here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
We don't need this discussion here anymore, and it's cluttering up the page. Where should it be swept to? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
There remain three stub articles. I have asked AnglaisEP to let us know if the project is continuing. Ground Zero (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Since the two-week nomination period is up, and not hearing anything from AnglaisEP, I'm plunging forward and deleting the three articles that remain as stubs.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


Invalid and empty category. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 13:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose- Why is it invalid? SHB2000 (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. In general categories should match the "breadcrumbs" we use to organize articles. Eurasia is an extra-hierarchical region, so I don't think this category is useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Perhaps not invalid, but I cannot see that it is useful. Pashley (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per others. There are separate Europe and Asia categories, and to quote Mx. Granger, "Eurasia is an extra-hierarchical region, so I don't think this category is useful." -- AnotherEditor144 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Mountain View CountyEdit

The article used to encompass an Alberta rural municipality, but I broke it up into city articles of Didsbury-Carstairs, Olds, and Sundre. I had it redirecting to Didsbury-Carstairs for a while, but nothing actually links to it and it's redundant. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Make it a disabg. page. SHB2000 (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
What will be gained from dabifying useless destinations? --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 05:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@MuzikMachine: Is "Mountain View County" a likely search term? If so, it should lead somewhere, either as a redirect (presumably to Central Corridor, as the bottom-level region) or a disambiguation.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: One could redirect it to the Central Corridor, but realistically the respective towns listed above are more notable search destinations than the sparsely populated rural municipality. If starting from scratch, the page and redirect would not have been created. --MuzikMachine (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I think this page's history is needed for attribution purposes, because there is likely to be content on the three new articles that originated on this one. Because you didn't do a page move, the edit history didn't automatically carry over. On that basis, I'd have to vote for keep and redirect to one of the three.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per MuzikMachine. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on ThunderingTyphoons!' remarks, this sounds messy and probably necessitates a redirect somewhere, not a deletion - unless MuzikMachine and every other user clearly didn't take any content from it and move it elsewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Unless there's a way to move the edit history to one of either Olds or Didsbury-Carstairs (which might be more work that it's worth), I'm fine with redirecting Mountain View County to Central Corridor. --MuzikMachine (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
So let's do that. Any objections? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Beijing Daxing International AirportEdit

Pronunciation guide

"Daxing" is pronounced like dah-shing, not like dak-sing, as you may expect.

The airport is opened too recently (2019) and don't have enough shopping options to fill out an entire "Buy" section. Compare to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, which is more than 80 years old and has enough shopping options to fill out an entire "Buy" section. Therefore, redirect the Beijing Daxing article to Beijing. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 07:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - "Beijing Daxing opened in Sep 2019, and is the largest in the world by area. It has been designed to be the next international hub of the Beijing area and the country in general, with the goal of being able to serve up to 100 million passengers annually." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    It is designed to be the next international hub of Greater Beijing. However, most of its flights are domestic. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 11:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    The number of passengers in PKX was 3,138,000, far lower than the "de facto "line" somewhere around 20-30 million pax p.a. (pre-plague, obviously)". --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 11:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The place opened three months before the pandemic started in China, of course passenger numbers are nowhere near where they should be. So let's wait a few years to see whether the numbers grow as predicted. If they don't, we can revisit.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirecting this page to Beijing will not lose the original airport page forever. It will be archived in page history. If the passenger number p.a. does increase to 20 million, then we can restore the article without prejudice. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 12:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • strong keep if this airport doesn't get an article, I'm not sure which airport would... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Why would it not merit its own article? It's one of the top 10 busiest airports in the world. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not listed at w:List of busiest airports by passenger traffic. I think some of the participants in this discussion may be confusing it with Beijing Capital International Airport. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
That list is based on outdated figures, see here instead. The pandemic has thrown a wrench into a lot of airport statistics as in a "normal year" those lists would long have been resorted according to 2020 figures, but the community is hesitant to use those numbers as they got "asterisk" written all over it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep C'mon, if Innamincka a town with 15 or 44 people is a well written article, I'm not sure what's wrong with this. SHB2000 (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't disagree with keeping the article, but we do have different criteria for airport articles than for destination articles. We will never have articles for small airports that get little traffic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the 10th most busiest airport in the world. SHB2000 (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is reason to believe the airport will be busy when travelling resumes. The article does little harm in the meantime. If the airport does not live up to expectations we can redirect it when we know. The risk of losing contributions is less that way, and less work for us. –LPfi (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there would even be value to keep this if after the pandemic it turns into gargantuan empty halls with nary a flight, but then we can cross that bridge when we get to it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is slated to complement Capital as a major international airport, and there's good reason to believe it will become a major hub once the pandemic ends. The dog2 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - the airport has a huge capacity, is planned to replace or complement Beijing Capital airport which is the second busiest in the world, and almost certainly would be considerably busier now, a year and a half after its opening, wouldn't it be for the pandemic (according to the Wikipedia article airlines were planning to move operations from Capital or start new flights to Daxing in early or mid 2020) Ypsilon (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the plan is for Star Alliance to stay at Capital, while OneWorld and Skyteam will move to Daxing. The dog2 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


A pointless redirect that nobody needs. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Certainly the airline is far more notable than the airport. I'm also not 100% certain about the wisdom of making a IATA redirect out of virtually any conceivable TLA... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this and the other airline redirects created by Soumya (Air France, Delta, Lufthansa etc...) - we don't want new redirects for every airline under the sun.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Should we also delete previously created airline redirects? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
How many of those are there? Also, do you know when the previous discussion took place, as it would be a good time to revisit that and see what arguments were given last time (I have a vague notion I was in the keep camp before).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
To answer your questions (at least) these and about four years ago Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
D'oh, the answer to the first question is obvious. Thanks, though.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
There might be some floating around that redirect to other points... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The two users who prevented a consensus being formed last time are no longer very active, and of course the general makeup of the active community has changed quite a lot, so it's probably worth relitigating now. For my part, I can see the wisdom in deleting all airline redirects: to avoid implying that we should have airline articles; to not disappoint readers with search terms that don't provide what they're looking for; and to stop a potential flood of new redirects being made.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete SHB2000 (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment We need to keep some of the old airline articles for attribution reasons, and they should redirect to Airlines, but we don't need new ones. AlasdairW (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If AlasdairW is right, keep the redirects that are thereby needed. Otherwise, delete all airline company redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not have airline articles, so no need to a redirect. The dog2 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Since we have consensus to delete the redirects created by Soumya, I've done so. In the process, I looked at all the airline redirects, and it does look like some of them will need to be saved for attribution purposes, but the majority were never proper articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Accordingly, I have deleted American Airlines, American Eagle, British Airways, Qantas, RyanAir, and Singapore Airlines which had no history prior to being made redirects, and have kept Philippine Airlines, Ryanair, and United Airlines, which were formerly real articles and whose content may have found itself moved elsewhere.
I'll keep this conversation open for the remainder of the nomination period (i.e. until Sunday 11th), just in case anyone would still like to challenge the deletions or can successfully argue against keeping the three.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Attribution purposesEdit

Excuse me for perhaps being blunt, but I have only ever heard the "attribution purposes" asserted as if they were incontrovertible fact or dogma. I have never had them explained to me in any way that I could understand... So, what exactly are those "attribution purposes" and which - maybe theoretical - avenue would there be to still delete those artifacts that we don't need? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's all to do with our copyleft licence, and ensuring all contributors to Wikivoyage are credited as such.
Look at this way: you edit article A, and so in the edit history of article A, you're credited. But then another user merges and redirects the contents of article A to article B, thus moving your work in the process. The only place your work is credited is article A; although article B should also credit article A as its original source (with an edit summary or a note on Talk:article B), the individual contributors to article A are not themselves credited in the history of article B. Therefore, in order to credit you and any other author who contributed content to article A that was later moved to article B, we have to keep article A (or more importantly, its edit history) .--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Nothing was merged. Or if there was, it is no longer there. And would that mean the only way to delete those redirects would be to also delete the page(s) they point or have ever pointed to? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
So you're saying that nothing from this rather long article was merged into any other article? How do you know that? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Would automated ways of trying to find out suffice? And which side bears the burden of proof? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Any merged content that remains after deleting the redirects is violating copyright. The legal risk is quite small, as few contributors would sue and there wouldn't be huge damages, but I think respecting our contributors requires us to be quite careful. I suppose AI could do quite a good job, but semi-automated processes will be tedious unless you make radical shortcuts. It is even possible that someone will dig up and reuse former merged content from history. Keeping the history of any page that used to have valuable content avoids most of the work and most of the risk of people finding their text with the attributions deleted. –LPfi (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
If somebody stumbles over content they added to another, deleted, article, they can probably trace it to the merger with little difficulty. So the burden of proof is easy for them. Then you have to prove due diligence and may be open for damages anyway (if a court is seriously underemployed). –LPfi (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Eye careEdit

No major edits in the past couple years, and too narrow (not that much of glasses-wearing is travel-related) to be a good split from Medical tourism. I'm not sure whether redirecting there or just deleting is better -- it's not a particularly significant form of medical tourism. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - I might be biased on this as I wear glasses myself but there are many people who have glasses problems and it can be re-edited on giving advise to an eye emergency etc. SHB2000 (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    Glasses-related issues happen, but are they really something that can be spun out into an entire travel topic? I think the fact this is an outline failing the one-year rule implies otherwise. I just don't think there's enough to say here specific to tourism to justify its own topic rather than some mentions in linked articles like Medical tourism and Solar eclipse. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's travel-related information in the article. At most, it could be merged and redirected, but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Mount EverestEdit

Extra hierarchal region that doesn't provide useful information to a reader. SHB2000 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep, obviously since it is a well-known name & highly likely search term.
Perhaps it should be just a redirect to Khumbu, though. It is not really a region & I don't think it needs to be a disambiguation page since it is approached from the Nepali side much more often than from Tibet. Pashley (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep and redirect, as it is a likely search term. -- Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep Do we not have a guide to climbing the mountain? I feel like that's the main reason to search for "Mount Everest", but we don't seem to have a summit-reaching guide. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep: A lot of extraregions are a bit useless, but this is clearly a valuable disambiguation page. I also second some surprise about not having a specific Everest travel topic, or at least not one linked here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Upon further research, Trekking in Nepal deals with it but not independently or exhaustively. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a likely search term for (both actual and armchair) travelers who may not be familiar with the name Khumbu or Qomolangma. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Both articles listed on the page, especially the first one, provide detailed information about walking to the Everest Base Camp. I also think more people would search for 'Mount Everest' than either of the other two pages listed on there. 14:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. Nomination withdrawn. SHB2000 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


A useless article that's content is mainly from User:Libertarianmoderate (banned editor - before he was banned) and this article provides no useful content for travellers. (apart from the don't go to Iraq advice) SHB2000 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support, per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If you look at the article history, it was mainly copyvio by one User:Sarbast.T.Hameed, who has never been blocked. I could support deleting the article at this late date on the basis that an article that started as copyvio should have been deleted in the first place. Otherwise, it should be turned into a redirect. But none of this has much of anything to do with the user of whom you speak unless Sarbast is the same user (as might be the case, but I rather doubt it based on the language on their talk page). Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Should mention that it's mainly his work after User:Selfie City cleaned it up. SHB2000 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ikan. A copyvio that had to be turned into more or less a stub probably has no real chance of becoming a useful article. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep against my better judgement, I made an article using text from various Wikipediae. Ground Zero (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ground Zero. Sarbast T.Hameed was a good-faith editor who briefly did some good work on Kurdistan articles before vanishing into the aether.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Outcome – Withdrawn after User:Ground Zero's substantial contributions. SHB2000 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan redirectsEdit

This is a bulk nomination of Taiwan, China, Taiwan Province, China, and Taiwan Province, recently created by User:Soumya-8974. They don't have a navigational purpose, as there's no use case to have any of the three in articles rather than just Taiwan, and in the search box "Taiwan" would pop up before you had time to write the three in full. It'd be one thing if they were useless but harmless, but they're also politically contentious endorsements of one side in a geopolitical dispute, which pushes them from neutral to a possible net negative. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all three per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. LPfi (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep – People who believe Taiwan is a part of China will probably search for "Taiwan, China" or "Taiwan Province" for the country. We generally don't delete redirects, because they aid searches. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 07:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't you understand that they'll type "Taiwan" first, thereby finding the article? Besides, no other province of China has a redirect from, e.g., "Guangzhou, China" - and please don't create such unnecessary redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, not even worth discussion. Pashley (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
User:The dog2, any comment? Pashley (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete" per User:Vaticidalprophet. "Taiwan" is a very likely search term, and users will have no trouble finding the article. Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per other comments above. --Ypsilon (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The dog2 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Soumya just created another similar redirect, Chinese Taipei, which given this discussion is ongoing I've deleted. Should these others be speedy deleted?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd say speedy delete. "Chinese Taipei" is not a term that is used in daily conversations. Even to people opposed to Taiwan independence, "Taiwan" is still the name of the island. Even mainland Chinese will use the term "Taiwan" to refer to the island, an you're not going to offend anyone by saying that you went to "Taiwan". Mx. Granger can probably back me up on this since he lived in China for a bit. The dog2 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (or rather recreate) Chinese Taipei, which is a plausible search term for someone who, say, saw them competing in the Olympics. I agree with The dog2 that "Chinese Taipei" is not used in ordinary conversation, but I still think that redirect is useful for someone who may not be familiar with the term. Neutral on the others, which strike me as harmless redirects but also not very likely search terms. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • A search on "Chinese Taipei" leads the reader to Taipei. The reader can easily find their way from there. I do not believe that someone who is watching the Olympics and has never heard of Taiwan or Chinese Taipei would be seized by the urge to travel to this mysterious country on the basis of seeing its athletes performing. Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia or a dictionary. Our readers will be people looking for a travel guide for Taiwan, and will be familiar with its common name. Creating links for search terms that travel guide readers won't search on is a waste of time. Ground Zero (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought "Chinese-Taipei" was hyphenated at the Olympics? Anyway, I'm neutral on whether to delete that search term or not, but I'd just observe that sometimes, the best redirect is really the one that wasn't created. We should have redirects for likely search terms, but there's no need to try to be exhaustive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete User:Ikan Kekek is right, someone will probably find Taiwan itself first. SHB2000 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: In any case, in common speech, "Taipei" is always used to refer only to the city, and not to Taiwan as a whole. The dog2 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: deleted. Pashley (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


Empty category, unlikely to be filled since we do not have articles on individual attractions. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 09:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It was created 2018 as {{PartOfTopic|Travel topics}}, probably as part of an effort to organise the topics sensibly. The See (I suppose "Attractions" was meant to cover that area) is now divided between cultural and natural attractions (and perhaps some more, Travel topics does not reflect the breadcrumb hierarchy very well). I suppose it can easily be recreated if it is needed in a new such effort. –LPfi (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Soumya-8974. We don't want to encourage attractions article. Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - useless unless the category is used/planned to be used for the breadcrumb hierarchy or something like that. --Ypsilon (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as below SHB2000 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The dog2 (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974, LPfi, Ground Zero, Ypsilon, Vaticidalprophet:@ThunderingTyphoons!, The dog2:, found something that actually fills in the category. SHB2000 (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The Walt Disney World one. SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Phenix CityEdit

A useless article that hasn't been edited since 2019. SHB2000 (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Real places whose articles we want to get rid of are usually merged and redirected. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, merge and redirect, probably to Columbus (Georgia). Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and can everyone please take note of the above, because there have been a few too many non-candidates for deletion added to this page recently.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Keep but redirect. Nomination withdrawn. SHB2000 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've merged the article. Thanks for your suggestions. SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Visa summary for EU citizens and Visa summary for U.S. citizensEdit

We don't do lists on Wikivoyage. And in any case, if you want to go somewhere, you should be checking with that country's diplomatic mission, or the destination page on Wikivoyage to see if you need a visa. In particular, there's no way we can have a proper list for visa requirements for EU citizens, because there is no unified EU passport, and each EU country issues its own passports, so visa requirements will defer depending on which specific EU country you are from. The dog2 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As a side note: citizens of EU member countries do have the citizenship of EU (and it says so on the passport) as well but this is really just relevant if you travel, work and live in other EU countries. But countries outside the EU sometimes have different visa requirements for, say, Germans and Bulgarians. Ypsilon (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or turn these into a short articles referring to some external site that has a well maintained list - maybe a EU / US based airline or travel agent. This kind of list need to be fairly complete, and updated every few weeks when something changes. The US list is far too short to be of use, and I can see some out of date info in the EU list (in addition to the complete lack of Covid updates). AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we should make these a soft redirect to w:Visa requirements for European Union citizens or w:Visa requirements for United States citizens. These WP articles are much more detailed and look to be regularly updated. AlasdairW (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we redirect any Wikivoyage search terms to Wikipedia articles? If not, should we? I don't think we do, but I don't know. I think it would be OK to do so in very limited cases that are exceptional and decided by consensus on a search term's talk page, but perhaps we should discuss that at Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I am thinking of links to WP, not a direct redirect. I have put this on Visa summary for EU citizens, but this can be reverted if this is a bad move. This links to WP articles and an IATA database. I think that these kind of lists are more useful for those with less "popular" passports than US or EU - such citizens may want to avoid getting visas for airport transfers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with what you did, but it's probably worth having a discussion about it, maybe at that article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I now would rather keep the articles as is with the Wikipedia links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete these. Add links to the WP "visa requirements ..." articles in our Visa article. If that violates policy, add them anyway & consider fixing the policy. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with adding to the Visa article, as it takes out a couple of steps that the user has to take in order to reach the information they need (far more likely that they'll find the Visa article before they find the two pages under discussion here).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Any takers for this idea? Ikan Kekek?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete SHB2000 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect. As it now stands, with links to (hopefully) updated sources it does no harm and could be useful. When the equivalent info is included on the Visa page, a redirect should suffice, to avoid updating in two places. A redirect is useful for those who have bookmarked the article or find a link to it somewhere. No need for outright deletion. –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Intermediate outcome - no consensus after 14 days, take an extra seven.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep until it can be redirected to Visa, per LPfi.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How likely are Visa summary for EU citizens and Visa summary for U.S. citizens to be used as search terms instead of, say, "visa"? These would be good examples of completely pointless redirects. Ground Zero (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I feel like links to the counterpart Wikipedia articles are useful, but I won't make a federal case out of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I would put those in the Visa article, where readers are more likely to find them. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Let's do that, but although the article name is unlikely as search term, there may be links to it, and it may turn up in search results. Let's not break those links, but keep the page as redirect – and let's wait with redirecting until those links in fact have been added to the Visa article. –LPfi (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
          I now added the summary and links from the EU visa article to a new section Visa#Visa summaries. The US visa article seems to just have an incomplete table. I suppose we now can redirect the pages. –LPfi (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Outcome: redirected to Visa#Visa summaries.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Dale (Indiana) and Future CityEdit

Block evasion by User:Libertarianmoderate through User:Midwestern Social Democrat (block evasion account) and has remained as a useless article and the user who created Roberto. SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: The Wikipedia article here mentions hotels and restaurants, there's a nice photo on Commons, and a regionally sizable theme park is nearby. I can see potential for expansion here, though I'm abstaining pending further discussion because I tend to be more liberal about blocked/banned edits than most of the community. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like if we leave it, then MSD will create another sock and recreate it, but this is block evasion. SHB2000 (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Plus, it's also the user who created "Roberto", a fake town. SHB2000 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a crappy article. We lose little by deleting it, and we send a signal to an LTA. Ground Zero (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both - nothing worth saving and there'll be no barrier to future re-creation by a good-faith user.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (amended 16:48, 19 April 2021)
  • Outcome: both deleted.--09:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

British Isles redirectsEdit

British and Irish Isles and Great Britain and Ireland are useless redirects which will only confuse searches.

We have redirects for plausible search terms at Britain, Great Britain and British Isles; those should be kept. Pashley (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep – It's confusing me but that's just me. SHB2000 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see any point deleting them and some pages may link to these redirects. 14:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No main space pages link to them. Pashley (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)