Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2022

December 2021 Votes for deletion archives for January 2022 (current) February 2022

Main Page New/commentEdit

Obsolete and no longer used unless I'm missing something. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It doesn't look like it was ever used. Ground Zero (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    I think it may have been used when changing the look of the main page during the migration to Wikimedia, which would have made sense in 2013, but not now in 2022. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Could someone explain to me what the point of this ever was? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek I wasn't here back in 2013 so I have no idea, but see my comment above as to my prediction as to what was the purpose of this message. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess. So delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as is simply obsolete. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete No point in this at all. If this were 2013 and not 2022, I would go keep 21:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Result: deleted per consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Everest ExpeditionEdit

This looks like a humorous page, but the creation of the expedition was never discussed nor does it look anything like an expedition page. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It might be a misunderstanding of what "expedition" means in the context of this site. Would you like to reach out to the IP user who created the article? In any case, I would suggest deleting, yes, but not right away, and they should be pointed to Everest Base Camp Trek in case they feel any edits are needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pashley (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirection: clearly the contents are not about a Wikivoyage internal project, and besides that, I doubt there is a wide enough scope to cover to justify having a so specific wikiexpedition. (The potential misusage of "expedition" could be fixed by calling these pages "wikiproject" instead). --Onwa (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per SHB2000. Ground Zero (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Result: deleted per consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


"Neutral point of view" is not a thing on Wikivoyage, only on Wikipedia, so it makes little sense to have this redirect in namespace 0. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ground Zero (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. It makes sense to redirect Wikipedians who are used to a NPOV to Wikivoyage:Be fair, so they can see the difference. I'm inclined to keep this redirect and add one that spells out the words in the phrase, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then it should be moved to Wikivoyage:NPOV without a redirect (which we already have). Namespace 4 is a much better place to keep this redirect than namespace 0 (mainspace). A similar reason to why we don't have the redirects AFD or RfD in mainspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed on the proposed move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
However, WV:NPOV already exists, so I guess this isn't needed anymore. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, then delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: deleted per consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


I am withdrawing this nom. 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Useless redirect page in my opinion. 20:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak keep The redirect target did show Garfield on the map, but this had been commented out. I have restored this and added a few words on Garfield. I don't mind if Garfield is deleted, but would make the general point that the redirected term should appear on the page that you reach. AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real place. I don't find this a serious nomination; the IP user may be unhappy that their non-article about the cartoon character, Garfield, was turned into a redirect of a destination name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ikan Kekek. Ground Zero (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Result: withdrawn by nominator. Ground Zero (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Simpson National ParkEdit

I created this disambiguation page yesterday not realising that I'd forgotten to add a "Desert" in the disambiguation. However, I've sorted out that by moving the old Simpson Desert redirect and so this page is no longer needed. The only reason why I haven't speedy deleted this is because I'm not sure whether to delete or redirect to Simpson Desert National Park. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: redirected to Simpson Desert National Park. Ground Zero (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


This is a TRAVEL DIRECTORY,not a board game repository. 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Support: there are versions of Monopoly for hundreds of cities around the world. There are 56 licensed version for US cities alone. Ground Zero (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Does this mean Keep or Delete? 17:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, if we can concentrate on the original Atlantic City one and then agree on which other ones are the most famous ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this would be more useful as a sidebar to the Atlantic City article. I don't think that anyone is going to plan a trip to include Atlantic City and London and whatever other cities we decide are the most famous ones. Ground Zero (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
No, but I could really easily see someone visiting particular streets because they're in monopoly games, and I could also easily see someone taking a series of trips over time to different cities and visiting streets included in monopoly games. I think this is a legitimate travel topic, and the only issue is how to prevent it from being unwieldy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Includes me in 2018. Only reason why I visited Mayfair was because of that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that this nomination is by a previously- and currently-blocked vandal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ikan. I'd personally focus on Atlantic City and London though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep As long as someone can work on it. Thematic travel guides are valid and even if someone won't go across the Atlantic Ocean to see all the sites about a given game, it's worth having them in one place so if someone goes to either location and is curious, he can find the relevant sites for the place where he is actually visiting. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Here are links to the localized variants of the game. I don't think "either" is the appropriate word as that suggests that there are two versions. Ground Zero (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course there's Indiana University Monopoly and Justice League of America Monopoly, etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting exploding out this article to all of the licensed variants. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned that there are hundreds of city editions. Thanks for taking two non-city editions off the list. That narrows it down. Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I think we're talking past one another or there's some sarcasm I'm not picking up on but I'm just saying that if this sticks to Monopoly proper, it could be an intelligible article. If it starts including all of these branded and licensed variations, then yes, this will be an unending list of trivia. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
What is 'Monopoly proper'? Doesn't that vary by country? What version do Brazilians play? Or South Africans? Or Indians? I don't know. Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Monopoly is an American board game owned by a mammoth multinational company. I'm sure that there are some differences in the version that someone may buy in Thailand versus the United States, but the standard edition is the one you would get at a big box retailer in Indiana. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
So the Atlantic City version, then? That isn't what the article is doing now. Also, I view Wikivoyage as a travel guide aimed at an international audience, not an American one. Other readers won't have had the same experience of Monopoly and you or I have had, and I do not think that we should presume that. Ground Zero (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, let's change Breaking Bad to include a bunch of locations in Colombia just because Metástasis exists. That's sensible. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. Let's stick to the topic under discussion. The discussion is about 'Monopoly', which is sold around the world in hundreds of different versions under the name 'Monopoly'. Many of our readers aren't American, which I think should be obvious, and have never played the Atlantic City version, but have played games called 'Monopoly' that feature streets from cities that are not Atlantic City. Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that in ZA and India play the London one, as the article says

The most common version in North America is based on the streets of Atlantic City, New Jersey, while the most common version in Commonwealth countries (excluding Canada) is based on the streets of London.

But no idea re Brazil or any other non-Commonwealth country and the US. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
That is my point, exactly. This is an international project. Let's not assume that Monopoly means Atlantic City, or Atlantic City and London. Ground Zero (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to see how this travel topic turns out. If it turns into a well developed one, then keep, but if it remains an outline, I'd go for delete. However, given the article was only created yesterday (Jan 6 19:52 PST), DaGizza should be given at least a month to work on it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In Singapore, there is a local Singapore version, but most people play the London version. Both are available in shops. The Atlantic City version is very rare, and when I was a kid, many people erroneously thought it was a British game. Anyway, I think this could be kept as an itinerary if someone is willing to work on it. Some people might in fact be interested in visiting sites that are featured in either version of the game. Also, if there are actual professional monopoly tournaments you can watch, that could also the basis of a travel article. The reason why we have articles for board games like chess and Go is because there are professional tournaments you can actually travel to watch. The dog2 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Travel topics are given a year and not a month before being nominated for deletion like itineraries, aren't they? And a blocked vandal nominated this for deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep pending expansion. Ikan is, IIRC, right that outline travel topics have a year's grace period; this is currently fine. We can come back here if it's not improved, and if it is, we've got a high-quality article on a relevant topic. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep we can revisit this next year if the article hasn't changed. Monopoly is one of those games that people play when travelling because the game is lying on a shelf in the hostel, and the game is still playable if a couple of pieces are missing. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Result: clear consensus to keep. Ground Zero (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

White HouseEdit

This isn't a disambiguation that's travel guide related but what would rather belong in a Wikipedia disambiguation article. There isn't a town/village/city etc. called "White House" and the one in Espangol is a proper name – nobody will be wanting to search "White House" in English to get to that place. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  • This is a complex one. I think it's a reasonable search term for someone looking for tourism information to the US White House. There's a good chance it could be for the other destinations, although I know less about them. Given we don't have articles on individual destinations, it's reasonable to host either redirects to the locales they're in (which we do for most cases) or disambigs when it could apply to several. The question here is how many it applies to. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think Vaticidalprophet is on the right track. My initial instinct is to make this a redirect to Washington, D.C./West End per wiaa (which gives Taj Mahal as an example of an appropriate redirect). But are the places in Virginia, Tennessee, and Jamaica significant enough to make this worth a disambiguation page? I don't know, but I notice that we used to have an article on the town in Tennessee. Either way, don't delete. I would remove Moscow and Casablanca though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    ok, so my insights would probably to revert to Special:PermaLink/3582923, and then add a hatnote in Central Tennessee saying
    White House redirects here. For the White House in the District of Columbia, see Washington, D.C./West End
    Does that work out? Unfortunately, that leaves out the ones in Virginia, Tennessee, and Jamaica so... a tricky one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that the disambiguation page doesn't list Whitehouse (Ohio). Any traveller hearing Whitehouse spoken wouldn't know that it is one word. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. How to handle the term is open to discussion. I think a disambig is probably best, but it's possible to go the way Granger suggests and then have an "other uses" template or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per AlasdairW's comment. It is a likely misspelling of the place in Ohio, so I think we should keep it. Given the other uses, it is better as a disambiguation page than a redirect to Whitehouse, Ohio. Ground Zero (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As Granger suggests Keep as a redirect to Washington, D.C./West End. That is much the best-known Whitehouse so the redirect should point there.
We probably also need a disambig page & a hat note pointing to it in the Washington article. Pashley (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Be Smart When It Comes To Disney WorldEdit

I have no idea what this redirect is even about, and I doubt anyone will search this term up. Unless it's needed for attribution purposes, I don't see a reason to keep this. Even if, it's possible to give attribution on the talk page without a live link. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Tai123.123 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a suggestion to deal with a problem of copyright violation. I can't see what this redirect is doing to harm anything or anybody, so what would be the point of going through a convoluted process of crediting its editors while deleting it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Speedy archive? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think so Tai123.123 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: speedily kept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Coca (Ecuador)Edit

There appears to have been large-scale copying from Wikitravel. This Wikivoyage article was started in 2017, so the fork couldn't account for the amount of identical content to Wikitravel. Compare this 22:23, 18 August 2017 version of the Wikivoyage article with this Wikitravel Revision as of 22:21, 18 August 2017. In addition, a listing tag was used in the linked Wikivoyage version, years after that format had been deprecated, and I literally changed a "Contact" heading to "Connect" within the last 10 minutes or so. What should we do about this? Vagabond turtle last contributed in 2017, so I don't think we'll hear from them on this topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd add that we may need to take a look at other articles Vagabond turtle started on this site. User contributions. The other articles they started are Conceição de Jacareí, Pantoja, Yasuni National Park; I think that's it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Special:Nuke/Vagabond turtle. (nuke all the pages they've created. Unless they give attribution, it remains a copyvio) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Since it is a real place, normal policy is that it should either be redirected or kept, with copyvio text deleted & maybe other things added. However, when I looked at WP to see if there was info I could use to fix it, I found that much of it was copied from there.
I give up. I'd still rather see it fixed than deleted, but I'll make no further effort to fix it & will not complain if it is deleted. Pashley (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pages created by Vagabond turtle (talk · contribs)Edit

Pages up for deletion:

list from X-tools

As Ikan mentioned, these pages were copied from Wikitravel without attribution, and until they give attribution, it remains a copyvio. Since this user last edited in 2017, I don't think we'll be hearing anything from them anytime soon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

What was the lawsuit about? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Lawsuit if no attribution is given because that's a copyvio. It's unlikely though that'll happen. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Or, we could work on these articles and rev del Vagabond turtle's edits. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the edits by Vagabond turtle remain in the following versions, which should therefore all be revision deleted unless we provide attribution. If the WT articles still are licence compatible, then copying content is allowed, provided we strictly follow the licence. We try to avoid copying for policy reasons: we don't have much interest in having to attribute WT, we risk a lawsuite if we are sloppy with the licence (for other contributors following the spirit is enough) and duplicate content has search engine optimisation issues. By deleting the articles, readding what wasn't based on WT, and complementing with content from WP and own research, we eliminate the concerns. –LPfi (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. On that basis deletion seems reasonable. But if we then re-add the material that wasn't based on WT, we would need to include attribution to the editors who originally added it here, right? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
We could also work on it fresh, just acting like the article had never existed before and/or translating them from eswiki. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing to hinder one from creating it with an edit comment on it being based on work by x, y and z. I'd blank the article, recreate from scratch using Wikipedia and own knowledge, then check whether there is something worthwhile missing (before doing extensive research), perhaps using the diff text instead of the article text, add that attributing the old revisions, citing the authors, then revdel anything before the blanking, and then add things based on own research to complete the article. –LPfi (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, a clean restart seems best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: Deleted. Anyone's free to restart these pages without copying from that museum piece. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:West Central Florida and Category:East Central FloridaEdit

Part of the previous region structure, and have been replaced by Category:Inland Florida and other region categories. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Obudu Cattle RanchEdit

As far as I'm aware, cattle ranches fail wv:wiaa. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would you nominate this for deletion instead of merging and redirecting it to Obudu, which doesn't merit comment here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me whether this park is large enough to support its own article or if it should be merged somewhere else. Either way, don't delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In any case, if a merge/redirect proposal needs discussion, that should have been brought up at Talk:Obudu Cattle Ranch. Speedy keep, and I'd say please don't nominate an article about a real place for deletion again, but let's see if others agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think we should archive this nomination. I’m not sure whether we should redirect the article yet. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Why? Looking at google maps, this just appears to be a hotel. Individual hotels or cattle ranches fail wv:wiaa. It's not a city, it's not a district, it's not a country, it's not a continent, it's not a national or a jurisdiction park, and not a rural area. And from "what does not get its own article":

Companies, even those holding a de facto monopoly or those owned by the state (hotels, restaurants, bars, stores, nightclubs, tour operators, airlines, rail or bus operators, etc.) Monopolies that are likely to be used as frequent search terms may be created as redirects to the relevant article, such as Amtrak, which redirects to rail travel in the United States.

In saying that, Granger does have a good point though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Keep for now though we can start a discussion on the relevant talk page about whether it should be merged with Obudu. Note that Google says the mountain resort (another name for the cattle ranch) is about 72 km/1 hr 38 min away from the city of Obudu, which is quite far. If it is big and unique enough, it may warrant being its own park article. Gizza (roam) 23:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Comment If we're really going to allow something that fails what is an article, the only thing I'd suggest is moving this page to Obudu Plateau where there are other hotels as well. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If it fails wiaa, it still could be merged somewhere, and don't you understand that that requires turning the article title into a redirect? Do you really propose to delete this content? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It's possible to move the current page to Obudu Plateau without a redirect and work on it from there. I'll be happy to do that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, yes, you could move it, which is also not a deletion and didn't require a nomination here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, sure. I'll do it soon and speedy archive this nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: Moved to Obudu Plateau without a redirect. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


I think if someone searched expedition in the mainspace they wouldn't want this result. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguate Now Tai123.123 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I now go for disambiguate per Pashley and Vaticidalprophet. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 02:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see this redirect confusing readers, and new editors, who just see the list and think "we have a Kosovo Expedition, so we should have an Everest Expedition". It would be more useful to have a travel topic on joining or organising an actual expedition. AlasdairW (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This would be a plausible travel topic (though definitely not one I'm qualified to write). —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Turn it into a disambig page? Link to Wikivoyage:Expeditions for our specialised use of the term. Also to places you need an expedition to reach; Next-to-impossible destinations & Wilderness backpacking, maybe others? Pashley (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Pashley's suggestion. This is a fairly generic term that can reasonably serve a purpose for both the editor and the traveller. SHB's use of it implies it's getting enough use to be worth at least keeping some connection to the projectspace page, but the nomination's argument is also reasonable. Disambiguation with the set of articles Pashley suggests is a plausible middle ground. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or create a travel topic with a disambiguation link above towards a disambiguation page. Another alternative could be to rename all the "Wikivoyage Expeditions" into something clearer, such as "WikiProject" instead. --Onwa (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like the idea of making this a disambiguation if it can be done well, and I think the folks participating in this thread are likely to be effective in accomplishing that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    There seems to be clear consensus to disambiguate. I'm not sure how it should look like, so would defer to @Pashley. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  I took a first cut at it; likely others can improve it. Pashley (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: Turned into disambig page. Pashley (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


There is no need for any separate guide for a small subdivision of a bigger city. Also, there is negligible (foreign) tourism here. The deletion has been discussed on Talk:Cooch Behar. 2006nishan178713t@lk 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep and merge/redirect as appropriate. And the deletion has not been discussed; you proposed it, I answered and you didn't wait for any discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Merging in progress. 2006nishan178713t@lk 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: Merged. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Tips for woman travellersEdit

This redirect doesn't seem to be serving readers. It's grammatically inaccurate, and by the time you've typed this much in the search bar the correct name (Tips for women travellers) has already come up. Because it's a typographical error, it's unlikely to be linked either onwiki or offwiki. In its entire lifetime, it's only received 26 views, which supports the suggestion it's not aiding readers with finding the article they want. Because of all of this, the main thing its existence does is leaves a grammatically inaccurate title to pop up in the search bar, potentially causing confusion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: Deleted per nom. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Kuala lumburEdit

Really? An incorrectly capitalised page and also that's unlikely to be a typo nor a misspelling --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? Delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've speedy deleted it. I don't think anyone with decent English proficiency will misspell it this way. The dog2 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: speedied by The dog2. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


This is neither a joke nor nonsense so the article should not exist at its current location. It got there by being moved from a mainspace article which was deleted. See Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2014#Islamic_State

I'd say Islam#Salafi-Takfiri covers everything we need to say about this movement. We might create redirects to that from "Islamic State", "ISIS" and/or "ISIL", but I doubt that is necessary. Warnings about their activities go in the country articles.

I do not think we want text that helps anyone go join these guys, for reasons similar to why we do not provide info for pedophiles. Pashley (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. I agree. It's well out of the scope of a travel guide, and it's not a joke either. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah not funny. Doesn't belong here. Gizza (roam) 05:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with the above comments, something like that doesn't belong here. Roovinn (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author expressed hope that gallows humour would be accepted here, but forgot to include the humour. Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Addis AbbebaEdit

I fail to see how you can mess up the spelling "Addis Ababa" so badly you get "Addis Abbeba". It's also only gotten five pageviews during its entire lifetime. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Pashley (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Addis Abeba is actually the transliteration I've usually seen for the Amharic name since the 1970s, though w:Addis Ababa gives Ādīs Ābeba. Addis Abbeba doesn't seem farfetched. I'd leave it alone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Comment Yes. In Swedish the name actually is "Addis Abeba", which also seems to be the German spelling. –LPfi (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also in French too. But I question the need for an extra b in it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's not doing any harm. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. "As a general rule, redirect pages should not be deleted" (policy) and this term has 32,400 hits in Google. Nurg (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's is an alternative spelling, or at least a reasonable misspelling. Ground Zero (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep unlike the others nominated above, this is an alternative spelling based on the transliteration of the local Amharic language rather than a misspelling. Also capitalisation isn't an issue with this one. Gizza (roam) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this alternative spelling used before. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept as nomination withdrawn. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Empty skeleton articles created by Paulboht (talk · contribs)Edit

Affected pages:

These articles were created in the unproductive page creation by the editor Paulboht likely to earn points in the contest. These articles don't even mention where they're located, just "{{PAGENAME}} is in [[Region Name]] along with the empty sections. They were created on 2021/12/28, which is almost a month ago(edit 2022/01/17 03:52: it's three weeks, not a month. Apologies.). They've had ample opportunities to work on it, and when Ground Zero and Ikan question that editor on what they're doing, they just brushed it off with personal attacks. We shouldn't be rewarding this sort of behaviour.

Although I do recognize that we have a policy of not deleting real places – this one is also among one of the exceptions. Additionally, for some like Gambari, it does not appear in a google search nor on Google Maps. I haven't checked the others, but they may be a similar case. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if they are real places, they can be deleted as there is no content. (Do we need to clarify the policy to be clear that there must be some travel information to keep a real place?). AlasdairW (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree they should be deleted, but that is not just clarifying, it is changing policy. We did not delete the empty stubs in Finland Proper, like Paimio. I did write the article half a year later, but starting from scratch is easier than starting from a redirect or empty skeleton – which in this case lacked the templates at the bottom. I think one-liners and redlinks in the region are good enough until somebody gets around adding at least some information, but that is not the consensus. –LPfi (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
      The difference with the skeletons created by Vkem is that they at least identified where it is. This one however, doesn't seem to do that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      Yes. But that info is in the region article anyway (I suppose also these articles were linked), in the Paimio case with coordinates and some directions, unlike the outline. If you do a search you'd find the region article, although the empty outline might get higher up in search results. I just don't see the point of such outlines (unless they are part of a project and will be filled with info soon). –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, If it has no use to a traveller we don't need it. I would be more tolerant on Wikipedia, but this is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If User:Paulboht does not add anything to these articles by the time the 2-week period for consideration is up, we should delete them all. If he starts improving any of these articles, we can give him more time with all of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: 14 days is up, and there's consensus to delete. Deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)