Latest comment: 2 years ago by LPfi in topic November 2022


Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted
Line 44: Line 44:
After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, '''move the deletion discussion''' to the [[Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Archives page for the appropriate month]]. The [[Project:Votes for deletion/Archives|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).
After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, '''move the deletion discussion''' to the [[Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Archives page for the appropriate month]]. The [[Project:Votes for deletion/Archives|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.
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. The note on whether the article was kept should be objective; if you have an opinion that needs to be voiced, voice it during the discussion – if you didn't until now, either keep silent or give others time to comment on it by not taking action yet.


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.
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.

Revision as of 14:16, 26 November 2022

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.

Nominating

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, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone.

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 ("~~~~").

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. ~~~~ 

Commenting

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 (UTC) * '''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 not

  • 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 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.
  • When deleting a template, either replace 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. Otherwise, remove the template from all pages that use the template. However, do not delete the template first – this breaks links and will cause a swathe of red links, requiring a lot of cleanups.

Archiving

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. The note on whether the article was kept should be objective; if you have an opinion that needs to be voiced, voice it during the discussion – if you didn't until now, either keep silent or give others time to comment on it by not taking action yet.

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:

October 2022

Yeah nah, maintaining a list of all disambiguation pages is unfeasible and has no clear purpose. It hasn't really been updated for quite a while, FWIW (there have been minor additions and adjustments, though). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Question: I'm inclined to keep it since it seems useful, but User:SHB2000 is quite correct that maintaining it is inconvenient & not often done. Is there a way to automate the maintenance so we get the benefits without the hassle?
It need not involve expensive real-time tracking; a bot that ran, say, once a month would be enough. I think we already have pages that work like that; e.g. I wrote at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2004-2013#Related_question "The special page for fewest revisions seems to be updated on about the 15th of each month." Pashley (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
It would need a bot, but I don't think disambiguation pages even show up in Special:LonelyPages, at least not anymore. AZ is a disambiguation page since Sep 29 yet, it's not linked from any article, but yet it doesn't show up Special:LonelyPages. Must've been a change in the MediaWiki software (I certainly wasn't aware that disambig pages once showed up in Special:LonelyPages). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't aware that the disambig pages no longer show up at Special:LonelyPages (but couldn't verify that by "AZ" since that page is linked from here and is therefore no longer an orphan), so I have no reason to cling to my "keep" vote, but I don't see any policy-based reason to delete this page either. A bot maintaining it is a good idea, if it is technically possible. Vidimian (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've adjusted the link, so "AZ" is no longer linked. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your effort. It indeed doesn't show up in LonelyPages even when not (conventionally) linked. Vidimian (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Outcome: no consensus; deletion discussion left open for another 7 days. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

November 2022

Unclear scope; barely any content. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's a lot of travel content in this article, isn't there? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It lists four proper articles on the topic (and one related one), which might be found through this one. As such I think it should be kept. It could be developed further to better put those four (and probably some yet-to-be-created ones) in a context. It was created less than a year ago, although not touched since spring. –LPfi (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply