French
Deutsch
| Welcome to Votes for undeletion It may occur from time to time that we delete an page by mistake — that is, that the page doesn't actually meet the standards for deleting articles listed on the VFD page. In this case, a Wikivoyager should link to the page on this page, with an explanation of why the deletion wasn't in accordance with our deletion policy. Articles and images are still considered guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page. Otherwise, the page will stay deleted. Please list new pages below. Archives can be found at Wikivoyage:Votes for undeletion/Archives. |
Although the article is deleted and salted for good reasons, I think it should instead redirect to Rio de Janeiro/Zona Sul, where it is listed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Undelete and redirect: there's plenty of precedent: Big Ben, Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower, Burj Khalifa, et al.
- ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- My only concern is whether there's any other famous Christ the Redeemer site in the world. Is there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think so, and even if there was this one obviously should take precedent being one of the seven wonders. //shb (t | c | m) 23:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- Probably so, and I'm fine with having it as a redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think so, and even if there was this one obviously should take precedent being one of the seven wonders. //shb (t | c | m) 23:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- My only concern is whether there's any other famous Christ the Redeemer site in the world. Is there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
It has been deleted in 2013 with a link to Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Summary (currently at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_2004-2013). I have viewed the deleted article and found that it was a skeleton with an informative lede. I have checked the WP article Hajo, and it looks like there should be a WV article on it with multiple listings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- If you were to re-create the article with the additional listings, no-one will object. We want to see more travel articles. What Wikivoyage doesn't need are copies of Wikipedia articles that don't provide travel information. Ground Zero (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- It is a real place & has temples which attract tourists or pilgrims. Resurrection, even as a stub, is OK provided it gets at least a reasonable lead sentence, and links for IsPartOf & Wikidata, Pashley (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- The deleted version does have a reasonable lead sentence and a IsPartOf, and it is easily added to Wikidata. It is still useless, so I think it should be resurrected only if some more content is added. A few temples, some with wikidata, can be added based on Wikipedia. Some Get-in content would be nice and probably not too hard to find. –LPfi (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Deleted by Pashley as part of a mass deletion of "useless redirects" by ~2026-14012-53. However, it's not a mere typo; it's a common misspelling based on the usual English pronunciation of Lithuania (and resemblances to names like "Ruthenia" and "Rumelia"). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Can you establish that it is a common misspelling? I've never seen it. And by the way, very few people are familiar with Ruthenia, and I have never heard of Rumelia. So I doubt people would know those spellings but not Lithuania. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- It was recreated after I deleted it & removed by SHB2000 as "vandalism". Leave it deleted. Pashley (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- It was created by an x-wiki LTA, but I have to agree with Ikan here. //shb (t | c | m) 21:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
This article was deleted by reference to WV:WIAA and WV:Bodies of water. However, these policies allow for an article of waterways so long as it is classified and written like a travel topic. And it was. It was structured like a parent article for the itineraries and travel topics on a number of rivers, canals and lakes, and provided some general high-level information as well. The way it was deleted unilaterally without any discussion despite the article being edited by almost 20 users over the past 10 years was a bit disappointing. Gizza (roam) 02:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Indeed it looks like a travel topic article, and I don't see why the theme wouldn't be in scope for Wikivoyage. I am undeleting it temporarily, so that also those who aren't admins can take a look. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- Undelete permanently per LPfi. Also worth noting that this article was created by Traveler100, who was once an admin on this site (i.e. they clearly knew what they were doing when they created this article). //shb (t • c) 09:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)