text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2009

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in June 2009. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/May 2009 or Project:Votes for deletion/July 2009 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Talk:Bangalore/
Delete - Spam page. Could one of the honorable admins please speedily delete the page (WT-en) jan 05:16, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Cavendish hotel london

 * Delete after merging content with London/St James's? - (WT-en) Huttite 08:00, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
 * If we merge, we should leave a redirect in place for attribution purposes. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:03, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Just Delete it is an ad. (WT-en) jan 08:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedied. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Bangalore/wiki/en/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore/
delete as soon as possible -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 09:12, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

See
delete - --(WT-en) Rein N. 09:16, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedied, clearly not an article. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:18, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Kume
It's not a city anymore and this city is not used in any travel books (I don't even know that the city has anything to offer). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:28, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Speedy redirected to Tsuyama. The Japanese government merged it there; no reason why we can't do the same. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

User talk:(WT-en) Scs
I realize that we don't really have a policy on this, and a generally very permissive on what people put up on their userspace, but this just looks like a totally irrelevant google ranking ploy, so I'm gonna try and put this up for deletion anyway. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:13, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep . We do have a (rough) policy: Wikivoyage_talk:User_page_help. If it were linkspam, blanking might be appropriate, but there aren't even any links. I'd support a more strict policy on policing touting in userspace, but that's better discussed in that thread. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Well, can I draw up the copyright violation card instead then? It very explicitly states "Copyright ©2002-2009 Para Tech Coating UK Limited. All rights reserved." down at the bottom of the page. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:24, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Speedy delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:43, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete. I'm essentially just repeating that I don't think the original policy discussion at the link Peter highlights above went as far as to have consensus to permit content that could never in any interpretation or the widest possible scope ever ever contribute to building a successful travel guide.   Since I don't see this consensus was ever reached, I think we should rely on our Goals and Non-Goals to guide us here.  If the page doesn't benefit the development of a travel guide, in the widest possible sense, it should be deleted according to non-goal 4 and 6.  Even if we accept that the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:User_page_help is valid policy, and does apply to this page, it should still be deleted, as the recommendation there that contact with the user is attempted has been tried in this case, and failed.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:25, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

 * I disagree, I think the discussion pretty clearly held up the long-standing practice that we should not censor userspace, with a few exceptions noted in the discussion. In particular, no one objected to Ravikiran's guidelines, and despite being pretty much the only dissenter, I agreed to them as well. In any rate, if there is disagreement about what our policy is, I think we should hash that out in discussion, try to reach a consensus, and this time actually write it into policy (I sure wish I had done that before...), rather than set precedents via vfds. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:43, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Although I of course agree we should not venture too far down the discussion path here. I must say I agree with the consensus at Wikivoyage_talk:User_page_help, and think this article is a clear candidate for deletion following those guideliness.  Personally I don't really see the need to revisit that discussion.  The consensus described there, simply is:
 * * Okay if travel related.
 * * Okay if it will not harm Wikivoyage's reputation or image
 * I see these guidelines as well thought out and reasonable. However, nowhere can I see was the consensus ever reached to not touch user pages which are completely outside of any possible scope for a travel guide.  This is an article about parylene coating.  It is completely inconsistent with our goals, and assuming the previous consensus is valid policy, it is completely inconsistent with that as well.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:48, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep but blank the page since it has nothing to do with travel and is a copyright violation. It would be quite OK for the user to link to the company either on his personal page or the talk page, and the note we leave after blanking the page should say that. However, the current text does not belong here for two reasons. It has nothing to do with travel and it is a copyright violation. In my view, either would be adequate grounds for removing the text. However, I see no grounds at all for deleting the page. (WT-en) Pashley 01:34, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Just to be clear, you would like to leave this guy a note, to tell him we have blanked his page (but not deleted it), because it was about some technology to coat computer chips with some sort of plastic, and not about travel. But you would like the note to say that he is welcome to set up a home page here, on wikivoyage, a travel site, making free travel guides, with links to another site telling people how to coat computer chips with plastic?  Really?  Sometimes I think in a focus on openness we lose track of our goals. Who will volunteer to write the Project:Welcome, Google rank spammer page. --(WT-en) Inas 05:09, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Actually, that page sounds potentially fun. But I think the main thing is to clearly draw lines to reassure contributors that they do have control over their userspace, if nothing else. Personally, I'd draw the line between anyone who has made non-spam edits and exclusive spammers, but that's a policy change and beyond the scope of the vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:31, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Good point, and this bozo's made only one edit ever. I'd support that policy change. (WT-en) Pashley 21:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Recent policy discussion on this topic reached a consensus several weeks ago, with no outstanding objections. Deleted per "non-contributing user pages" policy.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:43, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Prinsenbeek
Entry in Dutch, not English. --(WT-en) Rein N. 12:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep the article, remove Dutch text. It seems to be a real place wikipedia Someone who knows the area can add English text or, if the place is too small & unimportant, make it a redirect to a region article. (WT-en) Pashley 21:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Breda, if someone wants to keep it, because Prinsenbeek is added to the city of Breda since 1997. On wikipedia only en and nl have an article on it --(WT-en) Rein N. 23:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirected. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:47, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Image:HorsleyHillsMap.JPG
Subject of photo is almost certainly copyrighted, but I don't understand the area of copyright law very well pertaining to partial photographs of copyrighted materials. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:28, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete. Part or all, it's faithful reproduction and thus a copyvio. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Delete. I think it's pretty clearly a copyvio too. (WT-en) Texugo 01:23, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted after two weeks. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:48, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Puertecitos
Delete or blank page. In the begining of the article it is stated that the content is copyrighted. Seems to be no copyvio tough. (WT-en) ViMy 18:55, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete. Text is identical to, except that the user here has replaced the original copyright notice with one of his own!  The "all rights reserved" is a nice touch.  Given that, I'm more than a little suspicious about Image:EntrancetoHotSprings.JPG as well.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:57, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Done. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:47, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Beijing 2008
No longer useful, just info that should be in/moved to Beijing article.(WT-en) AHeneen 14:42, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete text, and redirect to Bejing. The article doesn't appear that well developed to start with, and we should leave Wikipedia to write the history books.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:30, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Done. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:47, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Edmonton/Southwest
This district no longer exists, so I see no reason for it to stay here. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:00, 24 May 2009 (EDT).

 * Redirect to Edmonton/South, just like any other routine merge. A number of things still link there, not least of which is the Edmonton article itself.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:10, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirect to maintain attribution history. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:00, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirect, obviously, although I wonder why it's not an issue that this article came to no longer exist with no prior discussion — even this guy waited longer. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:52, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Merging some of the more empty district articles (generally) was suggested by (WT-en) LtPowers and this specific merge was suggested by (WT-en) PerryPlanet and implemented (albeit rapidly) by (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast so it's not like there has been no community input. I've made more drastic districting changes to the bare districts of other cities without anyone so much as noticing. (WT-en) Texugo 00:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Edmonton/South. (WT-en) Texugo 00:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirected. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:47, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Vrijdagmarkt
This is a townsquare in Ghent, Belgium. I have added the relevant information into Ghent's site, so there is no reason to keep this. Otherwise, we might as well start creating new pages for streets, houses, rooms, etc. (WT-en) Sougato 10:25, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Ghent (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 10:43, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirected. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:47, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Three images
These images have been moved from en: to shared: and are now available for all language versions under their original file names. They do not need to be stored in two different project areas. (WT-en) Riggwelter 12:21, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Image:YorkMinster Owl.jpg
 * Image:York Viking Centre.jpg
 * Image:York Walls.jpg
 * Speedied -- duplicates like this can be nuked instantly as long as the name is the same on Shared (or, if different, you've fixed all links). (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:58, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Oil Painting - Creating a Masterpiece

 * delete very OT -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 05:29, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted, linkspam. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 06:17, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

How to Get Started in Portrait Painting

 * delete very OT, again. Like 'Oil Painting - Creating a Masterpiece" above -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 10:02, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Andara_Resort_Villas

 * delete Just an adverstisement for a hotel in Phuket (WT-en) jan 07:16, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedy deleted, --(WT-en) inas 07:29, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Rome/
delete --Russian spammer? --(WT-en) Rein N. 10:40, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

How Do I Find Cheap Ugg boots?
Delete' - Spammer User:(WT-en) Golfclub doesn't get the message. -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 10:27, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedily deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 13:37, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Rio negro
Body of water and presumably not an article. Should be merged and redirected somewhere... but where? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:53, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * It will need to be a disambiguation page, per Wikipedia:Rio Negro. There are at least three bodies of water with that name in South America alone, plus actual communities in Brazil and in Guatemala.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:08, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hold We need to root out a new consensus on this, see North sea discussion --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. Between the miscapitalization and the disamb issue, there's no reason to keep this one around until we have an actual disamb page.  Different set of issues than what's in the North Sea situation. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:22, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 04:53, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:55, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Emergency Numbers

 * Delete - While I am all in favour of publicising the various emergency telephone numbers in various countries, the best place to do this is in the specific Stay safe sections of individual destination articles. I do not believe we need a single page that is a telephone directory for all the emergency services in the world. It is not likely you are going to need to call them all at one time. You might need to know the national emergency number(s) for all the emergency service in one country or most likely the local numbers and physical addresses for each emergency service for a destination. That means list in each destination article, not on a common page. Is there any policy about this topic? -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:28, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:05, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Bilge Khaan memorial
A small attraction which could easily be covered in the Get out section of Karakorin.
 * Merge and delete - (WT-en) Texugo 06:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
 * Merege and Redirect. No real overhead is a redirect is there?   If it is not promotion, or spam? --(WT-en) Inas 20:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
 * I don't see the point in allowing redirects for misspelled or improperly capitalized titles, unless the title is frequently misspelled. (WT-en) Texugo 07:51, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Neither do I. Which part do you consider misspelled or improperly capitalised?  A quick google search on Bilge Khaan certainly reveals a fair variation in spelling.  --(WT-en) inas 21:07, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: merged. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Merge & redirect. There is no reason to delete redirects (that aren't spam), and it's possible that they could positively affect our SEO. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:49, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Xar Bulgas
An isolated ruin with no facilities. Outcome: merged. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirect somewhere - (WT-en) Texugo 06:19, 5 March 2009 (EST)
 * Merge with Kharakhorin too! - (WT-en) Huttite 07:24, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Stalybridge
A town in the borough of Tameside, which currently redirects to Manchester. Created by an anonymous user probably to promote the apartment company listed in the Sleep section, and I can't get the link they left to load.
 * Redirect to Manchester? (WT-en) Texugo 11:35, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirected. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:46, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Kanmon_Straits
Per Project:Bodies of water. There's no content here that doesn't also belong in Kitakyushu or Shimonoseki (and their respective prefecture articles). (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:43, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Turn into to disambig pointing to the appropriate places. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:32, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: turned into disambiguation page. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:20, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Y
According to Wikipedia, Y (Alaska) is just the name of a census area, so it's not a real city. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 12:23, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
 * As we define "city", it might be. CDPs are usually populated places that are not officially incorporated but have a legitimate name.  It may very well be the best name for that particular community.  (WT-en) LtPowers 12:52, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I think this is a time where we should look to the old faithful, Can you sleep there, for guidance. We don't have an article for every crossroads on the map applies even where there are few roads, and where they may not even cross. --(WT-en) inas 00:23, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree. Wikipedia says, though, "Many residents are self-employed in a variety of small businesses, including lodging, guiding and charter services."  That's indicative that an article could probably be written.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:33, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Sounds convincing. I guess Keep.  --(WT-en) inas 20:39, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Outcome: keep. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Tararu Valley Sanctuary
Probably shouldn't have been an article to start with, since it appears to have been a private enterprise. Recent edits also say that it's been closed, which this news article supports. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:19, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Hoofdpagina

 * Delete -- Redirect to Main Page. Correctly translated from Dutch, but do we need it? -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 06:42, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Delete. I don't think we do.  Why does :en get these occasional bits of inexplicable Dutch, anyhow? - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:56, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Gulf Shores and Orange Beach

 * Delete. We already have separate articles for Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, so there's no one article that this could be redirected to.  I can't fathom why someone would search for that exact term rather than the individual city names, regardless.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:03, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep as a redirect or perhaps as a region page. The creator obviously thought these two places formed a bigger region together. Perhaps redirect to the smallest region page where these two places are mentioned. Perhaps we need a bit of policy guidance for editors that says that articles named one place and another place are regions, so they need to write separate articles about each place also. Maybe we need a   warning too. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Gulf Coast (Alabama), where both cities are already listed. No sense in making a new subregion for it, seeing as how the whole state is in need of a rethink in terms of subregions, which are currently listed under a barely-implemented and overly numerous county scheme. (WT-en) Texugo 02:02, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Speedy redirected to Gulf_Coast_(Alabama). Hope I wasn't being too presumptuous in doing so, but it seems the obvious (and simplest) course per Project:Deletion_policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:57, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I've got your back... (WT-en) Texugo 02:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Hermione
Can't find a place called this, certainly not in the Peloponnese. Hoax or just a really offbeat spelling? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:03, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Redirect, Hogwarts.. --(WT-en) inas 01:02, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I sense an April Fool's destination for 2010 coming on here... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Google gave me this link : . Another Greek place with more than one name during its history. --(WT-en) Rein N. 03:32, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
 * A-ha! Moved to current name, I think we can close this VFD. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:13, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Image:Pumpk_sales.jpg
No model release from either of these identifiable fellows. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:35, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:56, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Image:India Map.png
My experiment, now redundant because India has a much better map. Not linked anywhere except my user page; putting it here just to check if anyone else is using it. Will delete it myself if no one objects. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:43, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 09:08, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Image:Saranda map.jpg
A whole map just to show how to get to a hostel? No. Speedied as copyright violation from. Listed here for documentation. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:19, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Mount Tambora

 * Delete . Appears to be a non-article, with no lodging. Perhaps the content could be moved to a Sumbawa article? If so, a redirect would be appropriate. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:16, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep. It's a multi-day climb and there is accommodation on the slopes, and there's plenty of precedent for Indonesian mountains (Mount Bromo, Mount Rinjani, etc). (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Speedy kept. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Sino-Japanese cooperation in the realization of low-temperature hydrogen production
delete - not a travel topic. --(WT-en) Rein N. 08:33, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Speedied - --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:03, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2009


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2010

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in June 2010. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/May 2010 or Project:Votes for deletion/July 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Disney Magic and Disney Cruise Line
A cruise ship and a cruise line respectively.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Obviously valuable information. It needs to be merged somewhere but where would you propose putting it?  We never came to a clear consensus last time we discussed cruise lines.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:39, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

 * The same user has made edits here inserting names of cruise lines, I guess with the intention of starting an article for each. I would err on the of caution as I can see this becoming a slippery slope. Airline articles likewise - I am not quite sure why we have them. With articles about Cruise lines and Airlines, what next? Hotel groups? Bus companies? Tour agencies? It feels very slippery indeed.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:24, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete. I am definitely in agreement with Burmesedays here, this is a very slippery slope. And I really see no good information in either of these articles, especially an article about a cruise ship. I think we should take a very hard line here; the Cruise ships article does a good job covering the general topic, and we should leave it at that - leave the specific cruise line/ship info to other sources, as that info is going to be 1) too much, 2) too unmaintainable, and 3) too undefined (as in, where exactly do we draw the line?) for Wikivoyage. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

It's probably best that we revisit Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article before coming to decisions on these. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:16, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I have re-opened that discussion.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:10, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

The issues around cruise ship articles still aren't resolved, leaving these two nominations in a somewhat ambiguous state. The discussion on Project:What is an article seemed to be moving in a direction that would lead to creating broader articles with redirects for smaller topics like these, so would anyone be opposed to treating these two articles as "keep" and then converting them to redirects if/when that discussion reaches some consensus? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:00, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Policy discussions on cruise lines are ongoing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:17, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Bridle Track
The text is a copyvio, so the question arises again - to keep an article with no content?

 * Delete. The pictures can be easily incorporated into Hill End.  --(WT-en) inas 07:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Redirect, as we should always do with real places for which we don't have unique articles. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:59, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
 * I'm not aware of many other roads that we have redirected - but these things do slip by me. I thought the current trend was to lean towards deletion of itinerary-like articles.  --(WT-en) inas 19:25, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete. I believe there are too many bridle tracks in the world to have a single redirect, and none of them would anyway qualify for an article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:41, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Merge (into Bathurst?) and Delete. Peter is correct in that there must be thousands of bridle tracks in the World, but the information here could be deemed interesting/useful to someone visiting the area .Delete Just noticed that it's also said to be a copyvio. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:01, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

A trek to the Bandarban hills

 * Delete. Outline itinerary that hasn't been edited in over two years, which is cause for deletion per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:20, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete(WT-en) Tarr3n 05:07, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

A walk through Saranac Lake

 * Delete. Outline itinerary that hasn't been edited in over eleven months.  11.5 months rounds up to one year, which for itineraries is the length of time they can remain outlines before a VFD nomination. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:20, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Merge into Saranac Lake. Hate to lose this info.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:39, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge template added for Saranac Lake. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Hungary_colour.png

 * Delete. The image apparently is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0, but it seems based on copyrighted maps. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:03, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

 * The image is hosted at shared and should be discussed there. You are right though. God only knows how this map has survived so long at Wikivoyage.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:47, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: No action. The image is hosted on shared: and as a result we can't do anything about it from en: Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:53, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

South Caucasus
Outline itinerary that hasn't been edited in 14 months. The sections on Armenia and Azerbaijan might be salvageable, but they look pretty bare-boned to me. I would prefer to see it at a different title, too. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:50, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Caucasus. I know the area well, so I'll have a go at creating a simple, but usable itinerary for the region before the vfd is up, and save what is useful from this one. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 07:03, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect per Peter --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Caucasus. Although the outcome was clearly "redirect", comments about "saving what is useful" lead me to believe that this is actually a "merge & redirect", hence the action taken. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:34, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

North Sentinel Island
You certainly cannot sleep there. Indeed it is illegal to even visit there. Not really appropriate for a travel guide. A short para at Andaman Islands maybe?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:45, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
 * It's a real place. Needs to at least be a redirect, but I don't see a problem with a brief article that says (essentially) "This is not a place you can visit."  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:02, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * A redirect I think. It does not pass the test of can you sleep there? and additionally it is illegal to visit there. What possible use could this article be to a traveller?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:54, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect (sadly since it sounds like a very cool place to be in) to Andaman and Nicobar. Perhaps we can have a short, generic mention at Andaman and Nicobar, for those who happen to be nearby somehow, to avoid contact (landing or otherwise) at all costs due to both it being outlawed by the de jure government and also it is extremely dangerous because of the hostility of locals towards outlanders. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:06, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Whoops, the "stay safe" issue has already been addressed in the article. I thought I had checked that, but it seems I was looking at the "stay healthy" section of the same article instead. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:10, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect. There are tour companies of questionable morality that specialize in "contacting" uncontacted peoples. But even they won't get past the hailstorms of spears and arrows with which the Sentinelese greet Indian helicopters. Can't sleep here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:58, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Keep Abstain. The can't sleep there rule isn't meant to exclude places you can't visit, but rather discount articles on the type of places that you couldn't normally sleep.  I fully support (WT-en) LtPowers idea of just a short article saying it is not a place you can visit.  --(WT-en) inas 20:11, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Why put that information about this island into an empty article instead of consolidating it where it is currently (at Andoman & Nicobar)? Should we create stubs for each tiny island in the chain? This seems poor organization. We rule out places at which you cannot sleep in order to prevent the proliferation of useless articles that disperse content. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:22, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Even leaving aside "can't sleep there", common sense surely says that a travel guide should not have articles about places which are impossible to visit?  We already specifically exclude uninhabited islands and I can see no value at all in a stubby article about a place nobody can visit.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:27, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * @(WT-en) Burmesedays We have uninhabited islands, some even reach the top level of the Australia, for example Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands, I don't think they are specifically excluded by any policy I am aware of, and I'm sure I could dig up a few other examples too. Wake Island, of course, is our famous example where people have been proud to document an island you can't go to.  Sometimes, in a travel guide, information on where and why you can't go is important too, and there seems agreement on that.  The only question is whether that info can go elsewhere with a redirect, or whether it justifies its own article.
 * @(WT-en) Peter I could frame the same question in the reverse. Why clutter a proper travel article with information on an island no-one will likely consider visiting or getting information on.  If someone is thinking of visiting, they can search for the island and get the (brief) information they need.  There is little value in the article, I agree, but there is very little overhead in keeping these articles - probably less than putting the information elsewhere and redirecting to it. --(WT-en) inas 22:47, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I really don't understand what the argument is for treating this accommodation-less island different from any other. Should we have articles for every island in the Andaman and Nicobar chains? Wake Island is a place one can visit, and has basic travel amenities that we do require for a travel article. Heard & McDonald is a reasonable exception, I would say, since they are so far from anything else and could not be covered usefully in the Australia article. Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article—subdividing the Andaman & Nicobar article into 600 blank island articles sounds less fun.   --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:17, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * To clarify: Wikivoyage policy specifically states that uninhabited islands should not have their own articles. Read Project:What is an article?. That policy seems to be ignored in a handful of cases, but remains none the less. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:53, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Good spotting there - right at the bottom of the list. Although this island isn't really uninhabited - though.  It's not a rock in the ocean.
 * Given that others seem to have a vision for the area which makes sense, and I'm not volunteering to piece together the region, I'm happy to concede the point. --(WT-en) inas 02:28, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Yep. The uninhabited island point was a side issue, but I wanted to make that clear for potential future cases. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:36, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect - Lethally unvisitable. (WT-en) Texugo 23:13, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I'd like to own up... I was the one who wrote the article. North Sentinel Island is a very intriguing place, and I wanted to make other travellers aware of it, for its own sake as well as for the safety of the traveller. However, I did not know that there was already a mention of it on the Andaman Islands page. I've read your objections, and agree that having its own page is unnecessary. I do, however, agree with Peter when he says, "Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article". But a redirect is necessary. --User:(WT-en) Squishysquashy Talk 13:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm okay with a redirect as long as the target article clearly mentions the island and that it's not visitable. But I do want to explicitly agree with Inas about the "can you sleep there" rule -- my reading of it is that it was meant only to allow us to (help) distinguish between an attraction and a destination, and any other use of the rule is questionable. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Regardless of anyone's reading of the article, we have been using the "can you sleep there" rule on this page since before my time to rule out articles on tiny towns, uninhabited islands, and the like (which could be seen as destinations and not just attractions). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * According to (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill the intended interpretation of this was agreed on IRC back in 2007. This discussion came up over Dorothy.  Regardless, whichever way you may choose to look at it, we have definitely moved on from the simplistic interpretation that would have us delete a destination for merely lacking a hotel or campsite.  --(WT-en) inas 19:06, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
 * (Actually he said "IIRC" not "on IRC". =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:24, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
 * I try to avoid wearing my glasses - its a vanity thing. --(WT-en) inas 19:55, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Andaman and Nicobar. Although the outcome was clearly "redirect", comments about making a mention in the target article lead me to believe that this is actually a "merge & redirect", hence the action taken. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:34, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

The City

 * Delete - Like, Downtown, this is a common name for the centre of many cities, including London. It's not by far the most famous outside of London, however, and a disamb page doesn't really make sense.  I can't imagine it is a common search term for non-Londoners.  --(WT-en) inas 19:57, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete - The term applies equally to any one of dozens of cities. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:52, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete, for the reasons already given above.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:47, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:47, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

http://www.laketauponz.com images

 * Image:Nthisland1-1-.PNG
 * Image:002 low-1-.jpg
 * Image:013 low-1-.jpg
 * Image:033 low-1-.jpg
 * Image:034 low-1-.jpg
 * Image:040_low-1-.jpg
 * Image:044_low-1-.jpg
 * Image:051_low-1-.jpg

 * Delete. All of the above images are attributed to http://www.laketauponz.com, but there is nothing on that site indicating that content can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete Seems pretty clear cut to me --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:47, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Freefalltaupo.jpg

 * Delete. Image is attributed to http://www.freefall.net.nz, but there is nothing on that site indicating that content can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete ... and should be on shared anyway --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:47, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

River Lee

 * Delete. A stub about a river in Southeast England. Clearly not an article and there is no obvious redirect as it passes through London/East, Hertfordshire and Essex.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 13:16, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Agree. Especially as it is not even spelt correctly. As a kid I always knew it as the Lea, but then the bureaucrats intervened. Rivers are fine for Wikipedia but I don't see that they have a place in Wikivoyage. (WT-en) Shep 15:08, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

 * It could in theory be an outline itinerary. If no further work has been done by the end of the vfd process, then it can probably go.  --(WT-en) inas 01:35, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 02:35, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete I'm with Inas on this, but I doubt it'll happen --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:24, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Gruene
A former ghost town annexed by New Braunfels in 1979 and completely within its city limits. New Braunfels is not, by any stretch, big enough to warrant districtification, so this information can easily be handled there.
 * Merge and redirect - (WT-en) Texugo 00:21, 30 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Merge and redirect - Don't know the first thing about the place, but Texugo's take on this seems reasonable --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for New Braunfels. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:24, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Kingman Reef
After some discussions on wiaa, I've been going through our uninhabited island articles to see if there was a good way to frame exceptions to the policy, because from an armchair traveller point of view, I quite like many of them. The reasonable suggestions seem to be based on uninhabited island that could be visited (by tourists, researchers, or military) and that are such a distance from other places that including them elsewhere makes no sense.

This article does not fit this exception. As well as being uninhabited, it can't be visited, and WP says it is more of a maritime hazard than an island, being underwater at high tide. Its not a good place to anchor your boat, or to set up a tent. As a result, it has a very encyclopaedic feel, rather than a travel guide. Perhaps we should leave WP to document this one? --(WT-en) inas 08:11, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect. Since it's a real place a redirect seems to make more sense than a delete.  It looks like Line Islands would be the best redirect target? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:37, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Really? Thats a disamb page itself.  Its only purpose is to direct people elsewhere. --(WT-en) inas 08:08, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Kiribati would be the move I think. Kingman is part of the Northern Line Islands, which are covered by our Kiribati article. It is not officially part of Kiribati but could very easily be covered there with one or two sentences. Alternatively, redirect to Oceania with a similar two sentence profile. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:27, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Hmmm - we could add something like If you happen to be saling to Hawaii, be careful about 500km north that you don't run into it?. If we decide to redirect, I'd throw my weight behind Oceania.  We already have a small section there for uninhabited and unvisitable, lets just redirect this miscellany to there.  --(WT-en) inas 00:21, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Line Islands, I think slapping this together with Kiribati, while a reasonable line of thought, is a slippery slope. Line Islands is fine, even if its a disamb page, since it would tell the would be traveller roughly where the place is. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Line Islands. If anyone feels strongly that this should be redirected elsewhere go for it - I chose the Line Islands simply because there were two votes for it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:41, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

List of Chinese provinces and regions

 * Keep. This one was part of the mass Project:Votes for deletion/May_2010 nomination, and as often happens when multiple articles are nominated together there were arguments made for keeping this article separately from the other list articles.  User:(WT-en) Pashley argued in favor of keeping this article, which seems fine to me. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:05, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:45, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

List of US Interstates

 * Keep. This one was part of the mass Project:Votes for deletion/May_2010 nomination, and as often happens when multiple articles are nominated together there were arguments made for keeping this article separately from the other list articles.  The article claims that it is part of the Project:Routes Expedition, so until that expedition completes I think it makes sense to keep this article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:05, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:48, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Somalia somali somalia.jpg

 * Delete. From Image talk:Somalia somali somalia.jpg
 * This image has likely been copied from here: http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/Somalia/North/Bari/Bosaso/photo210314.htm, to where it was uploaded already in 2005. --(WT-en) Túrelio 09:21, 31 May 2010 (EDT).
 * -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:53, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:51, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

U.S. counties (disambiguation)

 * Delete. Per a previous nomination we deleted the "list of US states" article, so to be consistent this one should be deleted as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:07, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

 * It looks like someone was enthusiastic at one stage about turning all the counties into either disamb or redirection articles. This seems an admirable goal - it would stop people creating county articles, and help people out looking for county travel info.  However, this endeavor doesn't seem to have got off the ground - some quick checking reveals only a single article (out of more than 3000) has been done.  It would take serious commitment from someone to do this.
 * I'm therefore inclined to say weak keep, and move to wikivoyage namespace. If the decision is eventually to delete, we should maintain the discussion page somewhere, as it is still relevant today - possibly at geographical hierarchy.  --(WT-en) inas 00:02, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Would probably be clever to keep this somewhere, but where? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:34, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:59, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Wikivoyage Path Lovers.jpg

 * Delete - Unused image with identifiable people without limited value for guide. --(WT-en) inas 00:33, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * The artsy borders that this user used makes me support deleting all of the photos uploaded by (WT-en) Richfield. Any objections? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:09, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Most of them are pretty useless and could be put up for deletion even without the artsy borders. A couple, though, are actually useful to a travel guide and I'd hate to lose them just because they've been artistically "enhanced".  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:08, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Oh my. That's actually very funny.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Let's go ahead and get the others linked here:
 * Image:Sonny's Benches.jpg - Useless, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Saint_Paul_Grand_Avenue_Bowls.jpg - Useless, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Calhoun Parkway Steps.jpg - Not a bad shot, but bordered and on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Downtown Saint Paul.jpg - Kind of dark, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Saint Paul Sidewalk Grand Avenue.jpg - Not especially illustrative of anything, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Brick Porch.jpg - Part of somebody's house? Bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Front Gate.jpg - Somebody's house. Bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Wikivoyage Paths.jpg - People in image, useless, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
 * Image:Seagull with Ducks.jpg - Generic, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.

The original nomination is uploaded here instead of shared as well, so all of them violate our photo policy in at least 2 ways (borders violate the "simple photography" clause). I don't see any real use for any of them personally. I suppose if anyone really wants to make a case for keeping one of them, I suppose they could take it and crop the border off and re-upload it to shared, but the only destiny I can see for these here is a big fat...
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 09:07, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete all. I agree with LtPowers that some of these may have value for travel, but most of them do not and the artsy border seems like a deal-breaker to me. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:51, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted all. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

Toprak Kala and Toi Krylan Kala
I'm not completely sure about this, but we have a Toprak-Kala article already, and it appears that the proper name for the second is Koi Krylgan Kala. No information about the second site is given and the Toprak-Kala article has better information than this one, so I don't see anything to merge. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:53, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I concur, Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:16, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Izakaya
This was nominated before, but conversation that continued on the article's talk page after the slush seemed to move towards consensus on deleting it. The stated reasons are that "Izakaya" is not a sensible redirect and that the content in the Japan article already has an explanation of Izakaya, so we don't need to bother merging. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:47, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete Don't see why this would need its own article, anymore than Irish pubs. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete. While I think we shoudl encourage more articles on beer, this one doesn't cut the mustard.  --(WT-en) inas 19:10, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Note that I left the talk page as it wasn't clear to me that the discussion was no longer relevant. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:170704-1-.jpg && Image:170704.jpg

 * Delete. These are the same image, uploaded twice.  VFD tags were added to these two images in 2007 but they never went on a nomination page.  See Project:Votes for deletion/May 2007, which states the nomination is due to the fact that there is no license info nor any indication what the images are. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:01, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted both. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Podhradom.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image of a hotel.  VFD tag was originally added in 2007 but this was never placed on the nominations page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:09, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:7sisters.JPG

 * Keep. I can't see any reason why this image would need to be deleted; however, a VFD tag was added in 2007 but this was never placed on the nominations page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:09, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:2006-ICE-PLANET.jpg

 * Delete. VFD tag added in 2007 with a note stating this this image is a copyvio from http://www.icesculpture.be. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:17, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Habitación.jpg

 * Delete. Image of a hotel room.  VFD tag was added in 2008 but no nomination was ever made. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:17, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Raju lonawala.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's also an unused image of a person, and thus not appropriate for use here. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:17, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Johnmizzi.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's also an unused image of a person, and thus not appropriate for use here. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:20, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Schwebebahn.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused, has text on it, and looks suspiciously like it could be a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Breckenridge.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and looks suspiciously like it could be a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:P1000335.JPG

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken from, so I'm not sure how we could use it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Kobe Cyuoku
I've checked and there is absolutely no content worth merging from this article (all of the listings are already in our Kobe article). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect it there --(WT-en) inas 17:43, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Kobe. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Globe-trotter (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - That is a rather bizarre way to transliterate Chuuou-ku, making it an unlikely search term. (WT-en) Texugo 22:26, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
 * If it was likely enough for someone to create the article in the first place, then its likely enough to be a search. Even if it only helps the person who created it, redirects are cheap.  --(WT-en) inas 01:16, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect per Inas --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Kobe. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:56, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

大船

 * Delete. This merge candidate should now go. Do we keep foreign character redirects on en?  --(WT-en) inas 04:47, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Ofuna, don't see why not, might land us a google hit or two --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Keeping foreign character redirects raises a few issues. They are difficult to patrol on a en site, and there are potentially 20-30 times more redirects to create than there are articles on Wikivoyage.  Should google hits be a consideration (and I think not) they should be directed to the most appropirate language version, which then has a inter-wiki link to en.  --(WT-en) inas 19:07, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete. I'm a redirect booster, and do think SEO should be something we take into consideration as long as it doesn't affect website quality, but it's too much to ask of our patrollers to follow the creation of redirects in other character sets. It's awfully hard to tell, for me at least, the difference between @#$%sucker and Tamanrasset, when written in the Arabic script. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:14, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete With Wikipedia it's not difficult to find many place names in foreign languages by typing in your native language and switching the language and Wikipedia does redirect foreign language entries however, for Wikivoyage I think if a traveler's English is not at a level where they can figure out the name of their destination, the guide itself will probably not be so useful. And they can also go to their native language (if it exists) and then click the English version from that page if they need to. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:49, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

/Zona Centro

 * Delete. Like downtown, this isn't a redirectable thing.  --(WT-en) inas 04:48, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

All-American Road

 * Delete. This Wikipedia copied text is encyclopedic in nature.   It is is not a destination, not an itinerary, and doesn't make the grade as a travel topic.  --(WT-en) inas 04:55, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Hvar.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's also an unused, and the same image exists as Image:Hvarsquare.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Harrisons.JPG

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's an image of a business's sign that looks more like advertising than travel content. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:My.php?image=philatq8.gif

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and the name & image size look suspiciously copyvio-ish.  If the consensus is to keep this image then it would need to be de-orphaned in one of the Philadelphia articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:My.php?image=phillymainpg4.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and the name & image size look suspiciously copyvio-ish.  If the consensus is to keep this image then it would need to be de-orphaned in one of the Philadelphia articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Pagudpud01.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image that was tagged for VFD in 2008 but apparently never put on the nomination page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Pagudpud02.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image that was tagged for VFD in 2008 but apparently never put on the nomination page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete. Looks likely that it was identified as a non-complying with licence conditions at the time.  --(WT-en) inas 23:23, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Sucree.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image that was tagged for VFD in January 2010 but apparently never put on the nomination page.  Looks like a copyvio map. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Abufatin.png

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's also an unused image of a person, and thus not appropriate for use here. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Sagada 2.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but the small image size and user contribution history look suspiciously copyvio-ish. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Europe 1.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's an unused Europe region map, and unused images should be deleted per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above, can't see us having any use of this, and should be on shared anyway --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:01monuments1.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but the small image size and user contribution history look suspiciously copyvio-ish. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete per above --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:S43 YADAGIRIGUTTA TEMPLE1.jpg

 * Delete. Thumbnail image with no license specified, and it's not a high enough quality image that I think we need to keep it around and risk violating copyright. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete completely agree with Ryan here (too) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:La oropendola.jpg

 * Delete. A VFD tags was added to this in 2007 but it never went on a nomination page and there isn't any indication of why the VFD tag was added.  That said, it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Chopta3.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:DSCF0023.JPG

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's a poor quality image of two people swimming - I don't think it's worth keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:EasyRiderTour.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's a poor quality image that was uploaded to promote a bike tour operator, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Mezquita.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Asia 2006 089.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Harrisons.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's currently unused and is also a duplicate of Image:Harrisons.JPG. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Learning Spanish abroad

 * Delete. stub travel topic.  vfd once before in 2007.  Argument given at that time was that it should be given the opportunity to develop.  Three years later, it still states the bleedin' obvious, that some people go to Spain to learn Spanish.  Really difficult to see how this article can develop, and previous suggestion that this could compare Spanish courses in Argentina to those in Spain seems wildly optimistic.  --(WT-en) inas 20:12, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete Traveling to a country that speaks the language you want to learn is a no-brainer certainly not specific to Spanish, and ranking Spanish courses by country doesn't seem helpful when there is a lot of variation in the quality of courses within countries. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:07, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:19, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Renting a car in the U.S.

 * Delete. Very badly written article and even seems to be a copyvio. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:10, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete. A no-brainer for me. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:37, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:29, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Mexican National Parks

 * Delete. It's empty and hasn't been edited since 2007-8. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 06:46, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete. I think the guidelines on stub topics/itineraries that haven't received an edit in a year is applicable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:05, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:08, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Diving in Thailand/Contacts

 * Delete. This is a yellow page listing of dive operators in Thailand, something that is an explicit non-goal of Wikivoyage.  Given that there is almost no useful information about the operators besides address and contact number I don't think this even merits a merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:15, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete. I'm just cleaning up a ton of SEO spam from this user....  — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 20:42, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:08, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Tatra.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned, tagged as a copyvio, and VFD'd in 2007 but never placed on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:BrezinaHotel.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned, tagged as a copyvio, and VFD'd in 2007 but never placed on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:64yog.jpg

 * Delete. Tagged as a copyvio, and VFD'd in 2007 but never placed on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Bergen from fløyen1.jpg

 * Delete. Tagged VFD in 2007 but never nominated.  I'm not sure why this was VFD'd, but it's currently unused and thus should be deleted per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Dickens poster.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and has no relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:A109pc.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and thus subject to deletion per policy.  If anyone wants to keep it please specify what article it can be incorporated into. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:SanAndres.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and Project:Votes for deletion/February 2007 indicates that it may also be a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Sari.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused, of poor quality, and looks like just a generic sea image so I have no idea how we could use it.  If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Sari .jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken.  If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:IMG 0132.JPG

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused, blurry, and of rocks and a lake with no indication of where it was taken.  If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:14-1-. bench in the shade (2).jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken.  If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Back.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken.  If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Tazza.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008), however it's a commercial photo of the inside of a bar in Providence, something we don't usually allow unless the establishment is notable for some reason. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:3steeple.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008), however it's a commercial photo of the inside of a bar in Providence, something we don't usually allow unless the establishment is notable for some reason. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Heavenmetro.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008).  It's used in one of the April Fool's articles (Joke articles/Hell (Hades)), but I don't see anything on the Flickr page that it is sourced to indicating that it can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Skyline.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused.  If anyone wants to keep it please incorporate it into the Baku article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Afbeelding buitengevel la oropendola verweg 001 correctie.jpg

 * Delete. This was VFD'd in 2007 for unknown reasons but never added to the nominations page.  It's unused, so if anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Bhattathiri.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's an unused picture of a person and thus a pretty clear case for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:02, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Saffron Coffee.jpg

 * Delete. Nominated in 2007 but apparently never placed on the nominations page.  This is an unused ad for a coffee company with no travel value. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Klagenfurt.jpg

 * Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008).  It's used in Klagenfurt but I don't see anything on the Flickr page that it is sourced to indicating that it can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Colonia (island)

 * Delete. VFD tag was added in 2009 indicating that it doesn't seem to be a real place. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Coakers walk.jpg

 * Delete. Tagged VFD in 2008 but not nominated, it's an unused image of two people with no travel value, so a clear delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete, recognizable faces. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:16, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Madrid/Pickpockets

 * Delete. Tagged VFD in 2008 but not nominated.  The info in the article seems to be based on one person's account of being robbed, so probably not worth merging. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:14, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
 *  Speedy delete. I agree with Ryan. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:39, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete Was the the deleted image an actual picture of the pickpockets?? Send it over to WikiCops (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:33, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Tel Aviv/Hatikva

 * Redirect to Tel Aviv or the appropriate district. This was tagged VFD in 2008 but apparently never nominated.  It doesn't fit within the Tel Aviv district structure which (I assume) was why it was nominated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Tel Aviv. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Kololo Game Reserve

 * Delete. Tagged VFD in March 2010 but apparently never nominated.  The game reserve is a listing in Limpopo, which is sufficient. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2010


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2011

Towns of Rochdale
The Borough of Rochdale is not big or interesting enough to subdivide, itself being a part of Greater Manchester. These 6 town articles were created all at once today, and contain nothing worth merging.
 * Heywood
 * Milnrow
 * Littleborough
 * Wardle
 * Radcliffe
 * Blackrod
 * Redirect all to Rochdale - (WT-en) texugo 11:25, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Redirect all to Rochdale --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:20, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Tottington as well. Redirect all.  -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 02:21, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Most of these places could probably have separate pages, the problem is there is almost no information there (with the exception of Blackrod). Are Rochdale, Bury and Bolton intended to be about districts, with separate pages for the towns in them, or are they about the towns, with separate pages for other towns in the districts? 81.153.234.60 16:55, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Redirect Milnrow and Wardle to Rochdale, Tottington to Bury, and Blackrod to Bolton - these are small towns, villages or suburbs. 81.153.234.60 17:27, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Until lots of confusing recent edits by one user, it was very clear that the Bury, Rochdale and Bolton articles were about the respective towns, not the council districts. Quite correctly, we do not sub-regionalise Greater Manchester or Lancashire. This point has been made at Talk:Lancashire and on the user talk page of the editor who is creating this confusion. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:57, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Outcome. All redirected. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:01, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Tajpur
This article may be a hoax. If it is not then it certainly appears to be of very limited benefit to the traveller. I came upon it today when tracking one of the West Bengal Sleep listing scammers. The sole Sleep listing was for Hotel Sonarbangla Resorts, this is a hotel located a few km from Digha and Mandamoni in Balisai, West Bengal on the opposite side of India. It also lists some temple attractions to be found in the region around Ahmedabad which is in the general region described. Detailed searches for the locality turn up several rather non-noteworthy locations that may match the supposed place, one of them is partly submerged in what appears to be a lake bed used for agricultural purposes. A prior Sleep listing described an accommodation provider named as Safarsonhee, that listing used a number 90spamfilter51115228 listed to Safarsongee Tours & Travels, Kolkata, Telephone: (033) 4004spamfilter8685, 90spamfilter51115228, Address: 9B, Esplanade, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal. The Hotel Amorabati-Bakkhali has also frequently been listed to 90spamfilter51115228 on travel websites. Searches for Tajpur in Prantij, Gujarat, India turn up what appears to be a semi submerged field in the middle of a lake. Another drops us into the Sabar Institute of Management, on highway 8 (Sabar Institute of Management. Tajpur, NH 8, Gujarat 383205, India +91 2770 255 132). Another search turns up a small hamlet with a sand drift covered asphalt road passing through it and next to a dry river bed (it may be seasonal), Tajpur, Gujarat, India is also a dry lake bed in the middle of some fields and scattered dwellings. Someone is having a lend of us here I think. I would hazard a guess that the perpetrator may have studied at the Sabar School of Management and has moved on to a carreer as a West Bangali accommodation listing scammer. -- (WT-en) felix 09:31, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete I have tidied up the article but frankly I think it is a load of nonsense and is of no worth to the traveller, I suggest that it should be deleted asap. (WT-en) felix 09:31, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Obliterate. The dishonesty of these folks is staggering! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:21, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. The Indian scams we have had to deal with here make others look like complete beginners.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:50, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Whales in paradise

 * Delete. This is an ad for a tour company, which per Project:What is an article is out of scope.  The information can be condensed into a single non-touty listing and included in the appropriate article for the city which the company operates out of.  While normally this would be a speedy delete candidate, I'm posting here in the hope of catching the contributor's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:18, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Speedied - The vfd tag was removed and further edits were being made, so I deleted it. (WT-en) texugo 02:19, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Reef_Ryder_Island is from the same user, similar content. I did not vfd it, just commented on user talk page. (WT-en) Pashley 02:27, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
 * There. I have speedied that one as well. (WT-en) texugo 02:35, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

More tiny UK towns
Nothing useful in any of these. I'd say delete all, but if there's a worthwhile redirect target, that's good too. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 20:19, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
 * South Ribble
 * Penwortham
 * Longton
 * Hutton

 * Comment. South Ribble is not a town at all, it is a council borough. As we do not (nor should we) sub-regionalise Lancashire, it should be redirected to Lancashire. The other 3 villages are all in close proximity to Preston (a fairly major town) and can be redirected there.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:25, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

 * South Ribble should be redirected to Lancashire. Penwortham is a town, but it is more like a suburb of Preston - redirect to Preston. Longton and Hutton could be redirected to Preston, as they are near enough, but there are other places with the same names - there is a Longton in Stoke-on-Trent. 81.153.234.60 17:06, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Outcome. All redirected as above.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:04, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Mahabgarh Mandir
A temple in India. (WT-en) –sumone10154 18:54, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't see any content, and a Google image search doesn't produce much. Unless a lot of content is put in soon, I vote to delete. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:33, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Delete - Content or not, it's an attraction, not a destination. (WT-en) texugo 09:16, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Re-direct to Garhwal where it is mentioned as an other destination (but ought to be in See/Do) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:34, 25 April 2011 (EDT).

 * Redirected to Garhwal. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:43, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Comparior

 * Delete - Purely advertising. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 18:29, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Speedied - (WT-en) texugo 12:17, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Blessed Herbs - How To Find Herbs For Colon Cleanser

 * Delete - Spam article and not related to travel or such. (WT-en) SnappyHip 22:59, 14 May 2011 (PDT)

Historic County of Lancashire

 * Dont really get this one. Could be an argument to keep it as an itinerary or merge as a short paragraph into Lancashire. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:39, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - It is not written as an itinerary page. (WT-en) texugo 07:23, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:40, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. Sits somewhere between soapboxing and a hoax. 86.183.23.19 15:23, 14 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:57, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

11 maruti

 * Delete. A list of temples. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:33, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Devil's advocate: Could this be rescued as an itinerary? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 19:51, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Delete, unless someone volunteers to do so. (WT-en) texugo 21:35, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Apartment Gutenberg - Budapest, Hungary
Looks like a rather thorough but benign misunderstanding of the Wikivoyage purpose. Content describes a rental apartment in Budapest.
 * Delete Inappropriate article and content -- (WT-en) felix 14:52, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Speedied - Clearly not an article. (WT-en) texugo 22:48, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2011