Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2018

December 2017 Votes for deletion archives for January 2018 February 2018

National parks of VenezuelaEdit

There was a previous VFD in 2013 with the result of "provisionally kept awaiting further development of the article" in 2013. No significant development has since occurred as evidenced by the edit history. Should the article be kept in light of this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep it is very much a valid travel topic. Deleting it then starting afresh won't serve any benefit. The information that is in the article is useful (mainly the locations of where Venezuela's national parks are located). I don't agree with deleting outlines articles just because they are outlines. In light of the copyright infringement, I now support deleting the article. Gizza (roam) 04:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It could potentially be a valid travel topic, but not in anything like its current form (unlike Wikipedia, we don't really do "list" articles here), and it seems like there's precious little information in the current iteration of the article that would be usable in a version that comports with policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no objection to the topic, and I have to differ a bit with Andre in that we do have articles like Indian National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. However, that's a more informative article and formatted in Wikivoyage style. More importantly, this article was started with uncredited copying from Wikipedia, and it's for that reason that I reject the very idea of keeping the article. It can be recreated if anyone wants to do the work, but it's our legal responsibility to delete an article that violates Wikipedia's/Wikipedians' copyright(s). I don't really understand how it survived a previous VfD. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Everyone should look at Talk:National parks of Venezuela. The "keep" rationale is accurately quoted by Hobbitschuster. Considering our current policies, I think the provisional keep was the wrong call then, but be that as it may, I think deletion is clearly the right call now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ikan's comments. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't want non-Wikivoyagers to think that copying with giving credit is okay here. Also, I'm not sure if this is a great travel topic, so we may as well just delete it. Selfie City (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Given the copyvio, should this be speedy-deleted? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Speedy deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mexican RivieraEdit

There is nothing to merge and no sensible target for a redirect and as the term originates from tourist brochure speech, its status as a "real place" is tenuous at best. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia article acknowledges its tourist industry origin, which shouldn't surprise. But as it seems to be being used, a redirect would make more sense for our travel guide than deletion. Or, better yet, an expansion. I'm busy the next couple of days, but maybe I'll try something after that. Ground Zero (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

+ It looks as though Pacific Coast (Mexico) might be a decent target for a redirect. Pashley (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added a pargaraph there mentioning the "Mexican Riviera" term Pashley (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I think it could be kept, although it would be best as a travel topic, perhaps? Mind-changer: Merge with Pacific Coast. I can see where this is headed, and I can see that both articles are really the same, and I've started to merge any information on Mexican Riviera with the Pacific Coast article. Would this now be a consensus? Selfie City (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - redirect to Pacific Coast (Mexico) as Pashley suggests. Ground Zero (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC) this nomination us now obsolete as I've expanded the article significantly on January 6. If anyone wants to proceed, this discussion should be started again as the article we have now is not the one we were discussing above. Ground Zero (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Should we remove this discussion if we're going to keep the article? Selfie City (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: Kept per Ground Zero. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


The article Ikaokao was created on Wikivoyage, but there has been conversation on its talk page about completely merging with the region article for Aniwa, which would be turned into a city article. Should it be deleted now the hotel has been moved onto the Aniwa page? Any thoughts? Selfie City (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Articles about real places don't get deleted if all the content in them is merged to another article; they get turned into redirects. Just FYI, you didn't know this, but redirects don't have to be discussed at Vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
redirected to the island.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: Speedy redirected to Aniwa by User:Traveler100. --Saqib (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


  • This file is an unused and unlicensed personal photo, uploaded by a now globally-locked spambot (User:Lil-By Eventos). I can see no realistic use for this photo on WV. Green Giant (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted - No reason for this to even be debated here. The photo was of a random person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: Speedy deleted by User:Ikan Kekek on 25 January 2018. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)