text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2006

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in September 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/August 2006 or Project:Votes for deletion/October 2006 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Project:Images for deletion

 * I'm not entirely sure we even need this, now. This was created as a failed solution to the discussion about reducing the two week waiting period for carrying out deletions to ten days or week.  No one uses the IFD page and it seems highly redundant if people are only going to list images on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:47, 16 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Agreed. Delete. -- (WT-en) Tim 23:50, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. I'd rather not have to look at two different pages.  I think the problem this was trying to solve was to keep the amount of material manageable, and (for now) we seem to have solved that by being more liberal about speedy deleting obvious non-articles, and ending VFDs early for obvious keepers.  The Template:Ifd should also be listed for deletion, since if the above page goes then the template should go as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:56, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. Agree with Ryan, and we can always re-create it if it proves necessary. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:30, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete, but I still think the underlying problem needs to be addressed. (By cutting the two week waiting period.) -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:59, 27 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Anyone want to make a comment. Two weeks are up and there seems to be a consensus to delete, but if anyone objects please state so. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:33, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Template:Ifd

 * Listed here since the IFD page is listed here. If one is kept, the other should be too, and if one is deleted, the other is then useless. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:56, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Agree, delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 02:26, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Aswan High Dam

 * Delete. An attraction located near Aswan.  A listing should be made on the Aswan guide. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 02:26, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Aswan. Talk:Aswan High Dam makes a case for keeping the article, but without any content a redirect seems to make more sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:11, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect, unless someone can provide evidence that you can sleep there (in a lodging). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:06, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Philae

 * Delete or redirect. Similar to above. An attraction near Aswan without anywhere to stay etc. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:11, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Agilkia Island. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 08:12, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Tim 09:05, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Aswan. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:02, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Agilkia Island

 * Delete or redirect to Aswan. As above - an attraction, not a destination. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:19, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Aswan. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:02, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

The Courtyard, Letterkenny Shopping Centre, The Forte Shopping Centre
Three articles created by the same user in an attempt to be helpful on the town of Letterkenny, but shopping centers simply aren't destinations. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 02:25, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. The information is fine, but it should be included in Letterkenny, not in separate articles. See Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:11, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
 * The shopping centres give info to visitors. i thought that was what the website is for. it's no harm. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Asdfghjkl (talk • contribs) 22 August 2006
 * No, we provide summarized and generalized information about shopping centers in the nearest destination's guide article. Please read Project:What is an article?.  -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 07:53, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 20:02, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Image:London olympics 1908.png

 * Delete. This image doesn't have much illustrative value for Wikivoyage purposes. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 02:25, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. Or move to Wikisports :) (is there such a thing?) (WT-en) CandleWithHare 17:31, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Image:Mt mayon.jpg

 * Delete. All of the above uploaded by the same user, who seems to have good intentions but also seems to be adding content that is not compatible with Project:Copyleft.  I didn't track down all of the above images, but several are from pbase.com and a few others have borders, shading, etc. that looks consistent with what might be found on commercial websites. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:05, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:51, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Airmiles

 * Delete. Someone's rant about (I think) a company's air mile policy.  Not an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:55, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
 * If there was ever a candidate for speedy deletion, this has to be it. Gone. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:16, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Beach in philippines1.jpg

 * Delete. All of the above uploaded by the same user, who seems to have good intentions but also seems to be adding content that is not compatible with Project:Copyleft.  I didn't track down all of the above images, but several are from pbase.com and a few others have borders, shading, etc. that looks consistent with what might be found on commercial websites. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:05, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:51, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I've started hacking away on 'em (sadly, as some should be useful shots), but please pitch in. Best, of course, would be if licenses could be obtained, but it's been two weeks ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:14, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

Eighteen Day Small Group Tour Covering Both Islands

 * Delete - a clumsy title of a very thinly disguised advertisment. Are we to have an artilce for every organised tour in every country? A slippery slope, surely. I would be more inclined to keep it if the tour was easily done independently by public transport. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:21, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't see anything about this article that blatantly violates the Project:Deletion policy, and the author is trying to comply with policies. I really think this discussion should first be moved to the article's talk page before the article is listed for deletion - unless something clearly violates policy it should really be a final step for it to be listed here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 08:50, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Ryan and I both explained our concerns regarding policy and not being a tout to the user and he seems to be doing his best to be a productive user and with a little bit of work both articles can be excellent itineraries and less like a billboard. Keep -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 10:14, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep and edit. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:24, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. I think a rename is in order, but this should make a good itinerary over time. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 23:24, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Rename and edit it. (WT-en) Tim 10:36, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Nine days in New Zealand's North Island

 * Delete. More of an advertisment than an article. More inclined to keep than the article above, but well worth discussing. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:21, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't see anything about this article that blatantly violates the Project:Deletion policy, and the author is trying to comply with policies. I really think this discussion should first be moved to the article's talk page before the article is listed for deletion - unless something clearly violates policy it should really be a final step for it to be listed here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 08:50, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep, but needs DRASTIC editing. The given itinerary just "happens" to match a product being advertised by the poster, what a coincidence (notice the "with our compliments" language).  However, the concept of an itinerary for getting around the North Island is as sound as any other itinerary.  Make it into something based on the island itself, not an infomercial, and the traveler's interests will be served. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:55, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Ryan and I both explained our concerns regarding policy and not being a tout to the user and he seems to be doing his best to be a productive user and with a little bit of work both articles can be excellent itineraries and less like a billboard. Keep -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 10:14, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. And edit. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:23, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 23:24, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep, edit and make it much less specific to the tout's tours. This is potentially a very good itinerary (WT-en) Tim 07:11, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Gdansk Ratusz Glownego Miasta.jpg

 * Delete. The licence is OK but it's unused and I think "esbi" is the reason why - it spoils everything (look at the image). (WT-en) CandleWithHare 13:55, 23 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Agree that that's a blemish, but it can probably be cropped out. I worry, though, that the license may be bogus -- logos like the "esbi" are usually put in place partially to prevent re-use of an image, which implies licensing concerns.  Anyway, if it's not being used, delete it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:37, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Puck.jpg

 * Delete. Possibly another copyvio (see User:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem) and unused. There are better images for Puck dual-licensed in the Commons. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 13:47, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

Last minute travel

 * Delete or redirect to ?. This article has two sentences, so it should (preferably) be redirected to a better topic or else deleted.  I'm not sure what an appropriate redirect would be, however. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:39, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Could we make this into a useful topic? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:38, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * The guideline is that "only when that information becomes large and complex should a new article be considered". This is neither, so I don't think it warrants its own article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:06, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. In my opinion this topic definitely qualifies under Project:Other ways of seeing travel.  The fact that the current text is content-free doesn't mean that something can't, or shouldn't, be made of the topic.  Content could involve things like how to get last-minute plane tickets without paying an arm and a leg; shortest possible routes to getting visas; pitfalls and shady operators; and so on.  I don't have the expertise myself to write that content, but if I did, I'd be doing so, to try to keep this around. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:37, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I've been on a crusade over the past few weeks to create several general travel topic articles so that we can keep the content of short articles like "Discount freighter travel for gay students who like to camp" without having to have such specific topics. Would it be sufficient to create a "Travel planning" topic and include last minute travel as a sub-section? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:43, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I searched for a reasonable redirect option, but I found nothing that made more sense over another option. I thought keeping the article might have made sense, especially since I'm the type of person who knows I want to go to Germany, but I don't buy a plane ticket until two weeks prior to when I decide to go or book hotels until the day before I leave, however, the information/advice that Wikivoyage could offer doesn't seem to make much sense for keeping.  Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 15:22, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Gds

 * Delete. "Global distribution system".  Not an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:43, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Maze

 * Delete. Advertisement for a hostel, not a article topic. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:01, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete per nom (WT-en) Computerjoe 17:30, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

Minneapolis/Eat Street

 * Delete. Good content, but I am not convinced that we should have an article on just one street. Should move the content into Minneapolis/Downtown, perhaps creating an infobox or special sub-section within "Eat". -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:10, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I think it would be better to discuss this at Talk:Minneapolis/Eat Street so that those who know Minneapolis can contribute to the discussion. I agree that this probably isn't a good district, but if we decide to move the content this article should become a redirect, not be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:50, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Agree with Ryan. If this is a commonly used name for the district, it should at least be serviced via a redirect rather than simply having the page deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:40, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Other articles do exist on single streets:
 * Toronto/Yonge Street - most of it would perhaps fit in an article on Downtown Toronto as a whole?
 * Sydney/Castlereagh Street
 * London/Bond Street - almost no content
 * London/Regent Street - almost no content
 * London/Oxford Street - a little content; I suppose Oxford St is noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article. That, and I can't think of what district article it would fit into.
 * San Francisco/Castro Street - also noteworthy enough, but perhaps the article should be moved to "Castro District" or "The Castro"?
 * I would argue that the Eat Street article should stay. If not, I would maybe suggest an an article covering Uptown and the areas around it (e.g. Uptown proper, Lyn-lake, Eat Street, etc). There is an article on South Minneapolis, but I feel that South Minneapolis is too vast to be considered a district; the land area of "South Minneapolis"  takes up over half of the city as a whole! Certain areas on the south side may warrant seperate articles. -- (WT-en) Eco84

Image:Slocoast.jpg

 * Delete. This image can also be found at http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/info/sunbelt24/last.htm, and there is no indication that it is publicly available. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:50, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Kliczków

 * Delete. This article will never grow. There's just a castle hotel there, which should be described in the article for Bolesławiec when it emerges but for now I moved it back to Wrocław, but to the Get out section this time.  (WT-en) CandleWithHare 11:42, 20 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. Or maybe a redirect? (WT-en) Maj 16:57, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Clearly passes the you-can-sleep-there test.  Not every article has to be developed into a ten-page masterpiece; travelers passing through rural country have needs too. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
 * According to Project:What is an article, neither castles nor hotels should get their own articles. For example, there is no article for Corfe Castle -- it is described in Dorset. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 09:54, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Whoa. I've found about half a dozen articles that allude to a village of Kliczków that includes -- but is not composed entirely of -- the castle.  Villages most certainly qualify as destinations, even if castles do not. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:08, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I did a very quick search and didn't find any references that weren't the castle. The hotel is linked in Wroclaw, so I vote delete unless someone can turn this into a valid town article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:57, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Karst

 * Not an article. If we had a page called Kras, I'd suggest a redirect, as the region of Slovenia bearing that name is also known as Karst in German; but we don't, and this isn't the German-language wiki. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:16, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Karst limestone formations are a major part of Chinese geography and a major attraction in tourist areas like Yangshuo and Wu Yi Mountain. Karst is the term used in English tourist literature. It is possible we need some general info on them. Can this article be improved to provide that? Or should we leave that to Wikipedia? (WT-en) Pashley 20:18, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
 * When I first learned that Chinese paintings of Karst were not stylized representations of mountains, I was stunned. Do you think this text could work integrated into the China article?  I'd hate to lose the info, but an article on it's own seems a bit much. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:25, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I've added a section "see" and subsection"Karst" to the China article. (WT-en) Pashley 02:43, 10 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Bentor.jpg
No source. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Image:Danautoba.jpg, Image:Laketoba.jpg
Copyvio from Sumateratourism.com, and uploaded twice to boot. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Delete unless clarified. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:22, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Image:Welcomestatue.jpg
No source. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Image:Garudapancasila.png
No source. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Template:W

 * Delete. Template added by an anonymous user for linking to Wikipedia, but we use WikiPedia for that. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:04, 1 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Tim 10:35, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Frank Shofestall

 * Speedy? 203.144.143.3 10:19, 15 September 2006 (EDT)
 * yes. (WT-en) Pashley 10:32, 15 September 2006 (EDT)

Zaza

 * Copyvio from Wikipedia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki also previous copyvio http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Zazaisch_Phrasebook&diff=306114&oldid=306113
 * I have redirected to Zazaisch Phrasebook, which you've helpfully corrected. Thanks! — (WT-en) Ravikiran 10:52, 11 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep as a redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:19, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Bunaken.jpg

 * Delete. Looks like copyright violation from http://www.wisatanet.com/templete/index.php?wil=2&id=000000000005523 but have notified the uploader, User:(WT-en) Anon, and asked them to clarify the situation. (WT-en) Tim 06:42, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Fineart.jpg

 * Delete. Copyright vio from http://www.jakarta-tourism.go.id -- (WT-en) Tim 10:33, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Natmuseum.jpg

 * Yet another copyvio from jakarta.go.id. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:34, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete and speedy per bullet two of the speedy deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:34, 6 September 2006 (EDT)

Sanatorium

 * Copyvio from Wikipeda, and encylopedic topic that needs no travel article. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:20, 6 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 20:12, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Speedy delete; clearly not an article, and never can be. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:41, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Boat.jpg

 * Delete. Provenance unclear, and uploader has not responded to request-for-clarification made in May. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:B-Ville in a nutshell.jpg

 * Delete. Provenance unclear, and uploader has not responded to request-for-clarification made in May. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Air view of B-Ville.jpg

 * Delete. Provenance unclear, and uploader has not responded to request-for-clarification made in May. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:IMG 0100.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Ustroniemorskie.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Kolobrzeg.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Swinoujscie.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:33, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:PATH.gif

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:33, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Kerala.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:37, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Fascinating-kerala-top-4.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:37, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:CochinAirport.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:37, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Kerala-map.gif

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:LMS.jpg

 * Delete. Unused, and has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Addis-Ababa University.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Sodere.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Deer.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Ibex.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Zibra2.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Lion.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Red fox.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Awash.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Abiata.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Omo.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios.  Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Nechisar.jpg

 * Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Arbaminch.jpg

 * Delete. Unused, no license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Arbamicnh.jpg

 * Delete. Unused, no license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Langano.jpg

 * Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Harar2.jpg

 * Delete. Copyvio, uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Harar1.jpg

 * Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Harar.jpg

 * Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Et facilities.gif

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Bath House.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by the same user as the others.  This one is CC-SA 2.5 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gondar_Fasiladas_Bath_Timket.jpg, which isn't strictly CC-SA 1.0 compatible. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Fasil.jpg

 * Delete. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FasilidesPalace.jpg the license is Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Gondar.jpg

 * Delete. ploaded by the same user as the others.  According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GonderHuge.jpg the license is CC-SA 2.5, which isn't strictly CC-SA 1.0 compatible. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Blue Nile Falls.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Sheraton.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Trinity.jpg

 * Delete. Copyvio, uploaded by the same user as the above images. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Addis.jpg

 * Delete. Uploaded by the same user as the above images, so likely copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Image:Ustka.jpg

 * Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I followed the link in the copyvio box, and it leads to an entirely different image. Has something been changed here?  The existing image has appropriate release language (if it's correct) and doesn't look like a copyvio at all, unless there's something else out there other than what's in the box. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:21, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
 * An image search on Google finds the image and gives that URL, although apparently the URL has since changed.  Either way, given that a Google web search finds it and there is no confirmation from the uploader that it is legitimately CC-SA I think we need to assume copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:02, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Northern Lights

 * Delete. This one doesn't quite fit the criteria of Project:What is an article?.  An argument could be made for an article about places to see the northern lights, but that's pretty much anywhere above a certain latitude.  Comments from others are appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:03, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Before keeping this one, just to be clear, Volcanoes is about safety when visiting volcanoes and includes a list of volcanoes around the world. Waterfalls includes a list of notable waterfalls.  If we're going to keep an article about the Northern Lights it needs to be a travel article, and not just an encyclopedia article about the phenomena.  I'm happy to keep this article, but I think we need to be clear about how this could become a travel article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:50, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * It looks like there may be a consensus to keep, and this article is being turned into a travel article so I'll rescind my earlier vote. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:58, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I have some specific ideas for that; will work on an outline this evening. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:05, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. In fact it is not the case that "anywhere above a certain latitude" is good for the northern lights (due to the offset of the magnetic North Pole from the geographical one, if you want to get technical), and this counterintuitive statement is exactly the kind of thing that one can build a topical article around.  It's every bit as valid as Volcanoes, Waterfalls, Hot springs, which have been developed into Travel topics that we're proud to have here; no reason why this one can't be too. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:49, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. We have a "Soccer in Europe" travel topic, why not "Aurora Borealis in the Northern Hemisphere" (so to speak)? Likewise Volcanoes, Waterfalls, etc. In any case, appropriate topic/content, and the intention of the "exceptions" guidelines appears to be to permit articles on distant, large, complex events (again, so to speak) which cannot be incorporated into any single you-can-sleep-here guide. ~ 203.144.143.7 15:23, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. (WT-en) Pashley 20:10, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * To be honest i saw articles about Formula One and various articles about Scuba diving, and decided to try to make a rough outline for an article about the Northern Lights, feel free to delete it if it doesn't fit in. I was well aware that the article would be something less than a travel guide when first created and agree it needs more input into places that organise "northern lights tours" etc. However: if someone is interested in traveling to see the northern lights it seems impractical to mention it in individual country articles. Like i said, feel free to delete if it doesn't fit in. If you decide to keep it it would be nice to have at least one picture of the lights and a map showing the northern lights oval (as mentioned above) in relation to the northern hemisphere.

Breastfeeding

 * Delete or redirect to Travelling with families. See Project:What is an article?.  This is a query from a user about concerns while traveling, but contains no information that is useful to travelers.  Those who travel with kids may be able to comment about whether this is a topic that is worth redirecting.  -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:43, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. It's probably something that should be noted in Stay Healthy in most countries so that traveller's understand the local customs since some countries tolerate public breastfeeding poorly. I don't think a general article is waranted. -- (WT-en) Colin 12:21, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 10:53, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect ~ 203.144.143.6 05:54, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect, with the obvious section added to Travelling with families -- there's little content there now to justify the redirect, but there certainly could be more. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:49, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect, per above. (WT-en) Computerjoe 14:35, 26 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect has already been done: (WT-en) Hypatia 18:29, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Template:Otherplaces

 * Delete. Created as an experiment that didn't catch on.  Template:Otheruses is still the preferred method for handling this functionality. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:54, 13 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 16:55, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Cliffs Shaft Mine Museum

 * Delete since we don't write guides to attractions. See Project:What is an article?.  -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:42, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I've moved the content to Ishpeming and the old article is now a redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:58, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Should we even bother vfding a redirect? -- (WT-en) Sapphire 15:07, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
 * In the past redirects for museums and other attractions have sometimes been deleted, and sometimes not. My opinion is that it doesn't really hurt to keep them around, and in this case it might help the original contributor in case they come back looking for their article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:05, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect ~ 203.144.143.6 05:55, 18 September 2006 (EDT)


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2007

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in September 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/August 2007 or Project:Votes for deletion/October 2007 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Mung Lai Stream
per Project:What is an article? ~ 203.144.143.5 01:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:14, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 06:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Chiang-Rai-Night-Bazaar-Perform.jpg
per Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.5 16:50, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:00, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:14, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 06:47, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Golden-Triangle-Map.jpg
I'm guessing this is a copyvio, on the presumption that whoever created the actual map (i.e. whoever painted the "original work" that this is a photograph of) has not licensed it. ~ 203.144.143.5 17:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:14, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:46, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Category:Daytona Beach (Florida), Category:Cities in Volusia County, Florida, Category:Daytona Beach (Florida)
Mistakenly created here instead of on Shared. Should all categories be added to the "shoot on sight" list for speedy deletion? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:55, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:04, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Hong Kong Culinary Tour
Great information and well written, but in the wrong place. I think this should be merged into Hong Kong and then deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:06, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Neutral. It's an awkward cross between an itinerary and listings as it stands, but it might still be salvageable... (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:35, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Hmmm. Typically, I would be hostile toward this type of itinerary, but as I've never been to HK and if and when I do make I'd want to jump-in and try to get a full dose of culture shock.  Thus, I think there could possibly be a venue for this type of information.  I'll make an official vote after a couple more days as I see the article progress. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Im the original author. This was just a first draft, with the idea to add more places later, and some more details on each type of food (typical ingredients, level of spiciness, recommended dishes etc.). The idea was to give more than just a list of restaurants - actually a reason to try each one over a period of time. I'm out of town for the next couple of weeks though, so I wont be able to work on it further til then. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 219.79.208.116 (talk • contribs)

 * Seems less like an itinerary than a private 'Eat' section. It's capably written, but if the author has a vision for it beyond what's there - but doesn't intend to do anything on it for a few weeks - well, that's what a (WT-en) sandbox is for. Don't premiere itineraries until they're ready. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:52, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

 * If this is to become a full-fledged tour, e.g., "eat Japanese for lunch at one of these 3-4 places on Tuesday and Cantonese for dinner at this place, then on Wednesday...", I would have no objections to keeping the itinerary. I myself have plans for a one-day culinary tour itinerary of the US Northeast. As it stands, however, all this content could easily fit in the "What to eat" section of the main city article and the restaurants belong in district "eat" sections. I also agree with Gorilla that Itineraries really should be usable before they are published, as stub and outline itineraries almost never get filled out later. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:53, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

I've updated this now to a proper itinerary (at least for day 1). Please update your comments if you still want to delete it. If it stays, I'll carry on in the same format for itineraries for day 2 & 3.--219.79.208.116 10:57, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

 * It's looking very good! Keep. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Yes. Keep (WT-en) Pashley 22:28, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Outcome - Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mersey

 * Delete. Per Project:Bodies of water, rivers lakes and oceans don't get their own articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:56, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:14, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:01, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:View of Kabul City in 2005.jpg
Delete. I'm the uploader of this image and would like it to be deleted because the quality of it is very blurry and I have another one on Wikivoyage share which is much more clear. Thanks!--(WT-en) Creative 16:10, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:38, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:A Night at Intercontinental Kabul.jpg
Delete. I'm the uploader of this image and would like it to be deleted because it is a duplicate of Image:Kabul InterContinental Hotel in 2005.jpg on Wikivoyage Share. Thanks!--(WT-en) Creative 16:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:38, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Night at Intercontinental Kabul.jpg
Delete. I'm the uploader of this image and would like it to be deleted because it is a duplicate of Image:Kabul InterContinental Hotel in 2005.jpg on Wikivoyage Share. Thanks!--(WT-en) Creative 16:27, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:38, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Endorse it in dorest
Unlikely to qualify as an exception to "What is an article?" rules. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:26, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Especially since there are, explicitly, "no pLans to expand." (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:48, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Had Yao
Beaches don't usually qualify as destinations. If there are places to stay on the beach that qualify it as a village, then maybe keep, but a delete or redirect to Krabi seems indicated. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, merge and redirect. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Redirected to Krabi --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

www.realitytourism.org
How strange that this pops up just as we were discussing Making a difference. Anyway, we don't allow articles for businesses, only places, but it could be spoken about at the Making a difference page. I listed it here instead of speedy deleting it so that the contributor might see this and understand why we can't keep it. See Project:What is an article? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:40, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - 'Speedy deleted

Talk:Germany/Racism

 * , Delete . The only relevant part of this conversation is from 2004, and totally outdated. It (obviously) is only serving as a breeding ground for accounts of racism in Germany and random comments, which continue to be added despite the warning at the top of the page that advises to only discuss the improvement of the Germany article. I know we don't generally delete discussions, but I don't think this one is serving us well. If we don't delete the entire page, I propose at least deleting everything beyond the 2004 conversation that has nothing to do with updating the Germany article or Wikivoyage. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
 *  Delete  for all the reasons given by Cacahuate -- (WT-en) WindHorse 09:45, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:56, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep the original discussion, but nothing else. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:41, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. I am less comfortable with selectively deleting comments than just getting rid of the whole page. If someone tries to recreate this page, let's agree to speedy delete it as it is a slippery slope and not an article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:12, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 04:40, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:53, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Ha!:) (WT-en) OldPine 13:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. Let's just keep everything from the original discussion and then protect the page against further edits.  Typically talk page discussions are never deleted, and while I agree this one is a special case I don't think we should delete it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree with Ryan and Sapphire after some more thought... let's keep the original discussion and protect the page – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I can go with that, and add my support to keep with protect. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:23, 24 July 2007 (EDT) Another idea: as the page is quite full, how about archiving it. Hopefully, placing it out of sight will bring the debate to close. However, if it does start up again on the new page, then we still have the option of protect. Personally, I prefer not to protect articles unless absolutely essential, and in this way it would be a final option, rather than a first.

 * I still think this "discussion" (I actually didn't see any discussion about the topic: whether Germany/Racism is a valid or useful travel topic) is a special case and should be deleted. Protecting might actually call more attention to the page, and also alert readers that administrators have noticed the page and didn't delete it. But if I am in the minority on this, I will gladly bow to the general opinion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

 * What about protecting, with a banner note at the top saying something like "This is an archive of a past discussion. If you've got something to say about improving the Germany article, say it at Talk:Germany"  ??  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 02:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Peter, we're not discussing it as a travel topic... it definitely isn't a valid travel topic... the page was created in the first place to discuss updating the Germany article... and whatever they were originally discussing I think was changed long ago. So the only reason for this discussion to come up again is if someone has a problem with something that is currently in the Germany article, or wants to add something to the current article. And if any new changes to Germany need discussion, it should just happen at Talk:Germany. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:26, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I see I did not quite understand the intended point of the page. Still, I'm not a huge fan of permanently protecting pages. Right now the only "extreme case" for which we are doing this is the main page (see Special:Protectedpages)—I'm not sure that this particular case qualifies. I prefer to delete because I don't think the page is serving a purpose and its largely irrelevant and borderline inflammatory content reflects poorly on Wikivoyage IMHO. But I understand the aversion to deleting discussions, so if we keep, I would prefer to use our everyday tools (reverts) to prevent the page from being further used as a group therapy board for victims of "German racism." This will be easy to do now that we are all aware of the page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

 * A lot of talk pages don't have a point, but keeping the discussions around provides a glimpse into how decisions were reached and policies developed. We likely have hundreds or even thousands of talk page conversations that may not be 100% relevant to Wikivoyage as it exists today, but those pages are all preserved and allow someone who is interested in the evolution of the site to follow the process.  For a similar example to the current one see Talk:United States of America; that thread contains a long discussion of red state/blue state politics in the US that has as much bearing on travel as discussions of racism in Germany.

 * Just as user pages are special, conversations between users are also something that we only modify or delete in extreme cases (hate speech, trolling), and this article isn't an extreme case. Protect it if people feel strongly that something needs to be done, but definitely don't delete it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete this since it serves little useful purpose and attracts irrelevant posts. Summarise the content as a section of Talk:Germany. Maybe three lines. (WT-en) Pashley 23:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I wrote a summary; it turned out much longer than three lines. It is at User talk:Pashley/TGR. I'd say make that a section of Talk:Germany and delete the original. (WT-en) Pashley 01:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

 * If we decide to keep the page, use my summary for that. (WT-en) Pashley 03:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I understand where you were coming from in making that, but I think paraphrasing other people's comments isn't really so great, and also I think editing it down to a bullet list like that makes it look even more like a breeding ground for comments about Germany's racism. I still think we should keep the original 2004 debate that was really centered around edits to the article, and delete everything after that that just gets into storytelling. I would say everything below Nils March 19, 2004 comment should be axed. And maybe let's not protect for a while unless it still continues to be a problem ? – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 01:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
 * There was no paraphrase in that summary. Everything was a direct quote, just shortened to what I thought were the main points. (WT-en) Pashley 09:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

 * This is an extremely rare case where I believe that protecting the page may be the right course. Aggravating or not, the discussions did occur, and as Ryan says, we generally try to keep discussions around, if for no other reason than that they will continue to recur.  At the same time, the topic is so incendiary that just leaving it open for business doesn't seem to meet our goals either.  See also the item I'm putting into the pub regarding the protection of archival pages; if that's adopted as a policy, then archiving this discussion and protecting it may be best. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Yet another storytelling comment was added today. As long as we leave comments on there of that nature, it's going to breed more. I think there's agreement to keep the original discussion, and possibly protect it... but what about the latter comments, which aren't part of any conversation related to the improvement of the Germany article? Can we delete those and archive/protect the original discussion? I can't see protecting the page without removing those comments, as that isn't really justifiable... a few people are allowed to leave non-WT related accounts of racism but nobody else can? At least if we revert the page back to the original discussion that was about the Germany article and then protect it we're doing something that should make sense to later contributors. The original contributors came to somewhat of an agreement on the text that they were discussing, and any new discussions on the topic can be started on Talk:Germany. What newer people aren't getting at the moment is that that conversation was about coming to agreement on some text in the article... they see the "I was given a funny look in Germany" comments later on and then think the page is a place to reminisce about racist Germans, which it definitely is not. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:27, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

 * It really is time this page to be deleted, even keeping the original discussion is a very slippery slope as it might give people the incentive to create similar pages for other countries. I'd really hate to see a Talk:South Africa/Racism page pop up; it would distract completely from the topic of travel --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I just reverted all of the crap and kept the original discussion. We should not delete this discussion because that's un-wiki, and as we all know, this is a wiki. Anyhow, I'll support protecting the page because people keep adding stories. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 05:37, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I think that Sapphire's revert was the right thing to do. I still don't see any need to protect the page, for the reasons I gave above and because the disclaimer at the top of the page makes it clear that this is not the place for group therapy. Moreover, I think protection might be a bad precedent, as it is an overly strict way of dealing with problems easily solved by reverts. This page certainly sees fewer unwelcome contributions than, say, Mandarmani, and we dealt with that just fine without resorting to hard measures. If anyone's worried that more story-telling will crop up unnoticed, don't be—I've now got this on my watch list and have my revert trigger-finger ready. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:02, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

 * That all sounds great to me... I've watchlisted it too... and I suspect it won't draw as many new comments now that we've removed the bait. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept, with a disclaimer and the option of protecting in the future. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Bald Mountain Sun Valley.jpg
Uploader saw that Sun Valley Co. allows users to use some of their images as desktop wallpaper. Uploader thought this meant it was public domain. For a work to be Public Domain, a copyright holder must explicitly release it into the public domain. Since they don't, it isn't. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT) Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:51, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Sun Valley.JPG
Image is labeled as PD-Creator, but clearly the creator did not upload it. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT) Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:51, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Chaolong
Not listed by Getty or Wikipedia  ~ 203.147.0.48 03:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Google reveals a village named Chaolong . It is in the heavily-touristed area around Yangshuo and has a guesthouse so "you can sleep there (TM)". Should this become a redirect? (WT-en) Pashley 01:29, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Thanks for finding that - I've now redirected it. Keep as a redirect. ~ 203.147.0.48 05:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Yangshuo. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:55, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Pangkor.jpg
Copyvio. See this edit summary ~ 203.147.0.48 05:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Not clear if the owner understood what they were authorizing. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:59, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Oleta River State Park
Per Project:What is an article?; it is not a nationally (in the United States) known park a la New York (city)/Central Park and Yosemite National Park, et. al. (WT-en) THE evil fluffyface 18:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
 * What city/town/county article should contain it? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Miami. I've done the redirect, but am leaving this open for discussion a little longer. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Miami. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:07, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Greek Restaurant Directory
per Project:What is an article? ~ 203.147.0.48 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. At most this might become a link in the USA article. (WT-en) Pashley 01:32, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. I see no need for redirect. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Speedy delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:40, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Project:Publicity rights
I don't really get the original intent of this policy, and despite its being around for 2 years, it has no content whatsoever. I think we should delete it and remove the reference to it in Project:Copyleft. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Created by an anon user in 2005. Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Seems to be covered well enough by wts:Privacy rights, and the (misguided) bit about buildings and such is now in Image policy. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:45, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:RV River Kwai.jpg
See http://www.cruiseasia.net/index.cfm?menuid=129 and copyright notices at the foot of that page. ~ 203.147.0.48 05:58, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Good catch. And even if there's any doubt, the picture isn't worth the risk. Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:00, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

San Jeronimo, Sopetran and Santa Fe de Antioquia
Per Project:What is an article? - content is "san jeronimo tunnel" ~ 203.147.0.48 06:38, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

About Cycling
Empty, not an article.

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 06:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Wangbua
Not an article.

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 06:53, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Atheltico Nacional
Not an article.

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:09, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ko Pha Ngan
Essentially created in error, would be better to delete it now (and get rid of the confusing history which serves no purpose and has no value) while it still has no content and start again from scratch. ~ 61.7.175.20 14:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. It's the (empty) talk page for what appears to be an entirely normal article.  WTP? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Golem Grad
Apparent copyvio from (WT-en) a contributor who may be regularly copying content from other sites. The original content is located here. I have left him a notice on his talk page. I'm also not sure that this island meets our "can you sleep there?" test. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:20, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
 * For destinations, it's preferable to remove the copyvio material and turn the article into something that meets our needs (contrast images, where we just have to delete the copyvio'd image). It doesn't look like this one will meet the can-you-sleep-there test, so it's reasonable to delete it, but I'd prefer to wait until someone has done some research to figure out where the content might be put, after de-copyvio-ing.  I can imagine finding stuff in the course of that research that might justify a keep or redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:06, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * On doing that research, it appears that this island is part of Galičica National Park, so I would recommend a redirect to that article for now. However, the national parks of the Republic of Macedonia ("FYROM") need more attention than we've given them (as does much about that country).  I have no idea whether this park qualifies as a destination, or whether it should be treated as an attraction in the article for Resen or even the top level FYROM article.  Anyway, for right now, a redirect seems right. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:53, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Galičica National Park --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:56, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Guantanamo Bay
Borderline deletion candidate. Most of the current content is certainly inappropriate, and it's a naval base not accessible to civilians, but if we've got an article for Wake Island then this just might squeak by... and yes, you really can fly "Air Sunshine" to Gitmo! (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:28, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. It is a possible destination for some travellers. It does need a rewrite, tone down the political comment without completely trashing it. (WT-en) Pashley 06:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. It is not a possible destination for most travellers. Because of that, we can afford a joke. It's funny, I hope someone expands it. --- (WT-en) Fridday 11:34, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Sorry -- but we really don't do joke articles. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:25, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
 * We should. --- (WT-en) Fridday 13:35, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Since it's not accessible to civilians and it's just going to be a magnet for political commentary, toss it. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:25, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is a possible destination for some travelers (I'm certain there are business travelers there) and it meets our standard criteria of Can You Sleep There. This article needs some constructive attention, though, and a disambiguation. The US controls only the southern half of the bay and its surrounding territory; the northern half of the bay is uncontested Cuban territory and is very much possible to visit. The fact that this article might attract vandalism is IMO a good reason to add it to our watchlists, not to delete it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:37, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. There is precedent for keeping articles on incredibly out-of-the-way military bases, e.g. Wake Island and British Indian Ocean Territory, containing (and largely being comprised of) the notorious Diego Garcia Island base.  The fact that this particular base is, ahem, controversial doesn't make it any different from those places in terms of our coverage. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:17, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

San Francisco/Parking Meter 568 47610
A single parking meter does not constitute an article. (WT-en) Texugo 05:04, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Laugh - Delete This one got me a grin for today. It needs to be archived in our funny section. I am not around much anymore, so I don't know if it is policy to blank a VFD page now, but I wish we could leave the content on this one while we discuss it. Sadly, delete, but I hope the author will stick around. We can use people with a good sense of humor. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 05:58, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Speedy delete, but move the content into an infobox in the appropriate bit of SF first -- it's not your average parking meter! (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:16, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. I've merged the relevant content into San Francisco/North Beach. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:39, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * LOL -- I sense next year's April Fools article coming on ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:20, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Bundeena
Seems redundant, info for this location belongs in Sydney/Cronulla --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Would a redirect to Sydney/Cronulla make sense? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Sydney/Cronulla

Image:Ph_regions_and_provinces.png
Copyright issues. Marked as PD, but with comments that it is GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Origional at is GFDL only. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:22, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:08, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Gangaikondacholisvaram
A temple. Might be a village, but I have no knowledge about the area so can't decide if it should be deleted or templated --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:17, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. Should that be speedy since the content is an obvious copyvio? (WT-en) Pashley 09:45, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Siviri
A venue for a festival? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:57, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:12, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Tamarindo and Playa Langosta
Duplicate of Tamarindo, created by spammer after his edit to Tamarindo was repeatedly reverted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:07, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

All images by User:(WT-en) Arvindsa

 * Image:Madan1.jpg
 * Image:Jbl111.jpg
 * Image:Ddhar.jpg
 * Image:Pach ms pandav.jpg
 * Image:Pach ms cath.jpg

Copyright violations --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:35, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Linda 9'05.jpg & Image:Crystal-hands.jpg
Non travel related advert (though one might be tempted to use her services to find out where your luggage has gone). --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:48, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I've speedy-deleted the first one (model release, etc.), and the second should obviously go as well, but I can't find a justification for a speedy delete. If you can, go ahead. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:26, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:20, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Reed Mine Panning.jpg
Requires model release --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:03, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:21, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

3 images by User:(WT-en) Phoenixjade
Requires model release --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:07, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Image:GirlsOutsideWaiting.jpg
 * Image:SapaGirls.jpg
 * Image:DSCN5390.JPG
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Images by User:(WT-en) Kristy
Copy violation (http://www.taroko.gov.tw/TarokoPortalEng/4_1_0/06.asp) --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Image:401 06 2.jpg
 * Image:401 05 2.jpg
 * Image:201 pic01.jpg
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Infinity.JPG & Image:Yatai.JPG
Requires model release --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:23, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:44, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Some new pages in Nepal

 * Chobhar caves - copyvio, not an article
 * Chobhar Gorge - copyvio, not an article
 * Grand old hotels, such as the fully renovated 200 year old stone houses of Chobhar Village Resort Hotel, 8kms from Kathmandu, Nepal - Content should be merged first

 * A recently renovated stone hut does not a grand old hotel make. Is Chobhar a sensible place to merge all this to? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:12, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Chalkidiki/Greece anon edits
Everything by and   seems to be a copyvio, and the articles they've created veer wildly from actual destinations to random Greek kings and philosophies. I've nuked the obvious crap, but this still needs a lot of sorting... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:23, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I removed one or two more that don't appear to include pointers to modern towns, but it looks to me as if the others at least point to valid destinations. Keep, but with some careful scrubbing for copyvio, as Nick and others have started to do. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * List them so we can make some sense of what is going on here in order to clean it up:
 * Nea Moudania - Copyvio content deleted and templated
 * Kassandra peninsula - Redirected to Kassandra
 * Olynthos - Copyvio content deleted and templated
 * Polygyros - Cleaned
 * Nea Kallikratia - Cleaned
 * Sithonia peninsula - Redirected to Sithonia

 * Gerakini - Clean
 * Neos Marmaras - Clean
 * Parthenon - Clean
 * Kallithea - Clean
 * Arnea - Clean
 * Sarti - Clean
 * Vourvourou - Clean
 * Pyrgadikia - Clean
 * Ormos Panagias - Clean
 * Sykia - Clean
 * Kalamitsi - Clean
 * Ouranoupolis - Clean
 * Halkidiki - Redirected to Chalkidiki

Outcome: Kept after cleanup and some redirects --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

List of ferries
Pointless and unmaintainable. The information should be moved into the appropriate destination articles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:15, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Seeing this huge amount of work pop up, and knowing that it would soon show up here, gave me a headache. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Archive. I am travelling over the Mediterranean by ferry (Montenegro to Portugal :) and find wikivoyages information really scarce. Id like to make a page Ferries in the Mediterranean, and link to it from every Mediterranean port. Then this page might come in handy. 88.44.122.242 15:23, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Creating Ferries in the Mediterranean and linking to it from every port in the Mediterranean is no more useful than List of ferries. Ferries should be listed in the city and country articles they serve, but why would somebody in Barcelona need to know about Albanian ferries? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:55, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
 * My plan for making this page has nothing to do with the list of ferries, it was just the first place where I mentioned it. And of course if you want to go from Egypt to Greece, you dont need to know about Albania, so thats why the page is ordered by sea. I was travelling over the Mediterranean, and noticed that the information on ferries was very limited. And for example, the ferry port of Rome is another city. You'd need inside information already if you want to go to Civitavecchia, whereas a page dedicated to ferries of the Med would lead you there automatically. Also some general info about ferries and companies can be gathered there instead of scattered between port towns. -- 86.209.87.197
 * Jpatokal upped the Ferries in the Mediterranean for deletion; but there is no vote for that here. He also undid all the links to that page. -- 86.209.87.197

 * Delete It's pointless but I'd like to see something created like the above user suggested. Ferry lists for specific areas would be more useful than one giant list. (WT-en) Xania 14:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree that this isn't an "article" in our usual sense, but somebody did a great deal of work to assemble this information. Delete, but not until it is verified that the information has been moved to the destination articles; there's no rush. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:13, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I want to say keep here, though I think there'll be real problems organising the info well. If I'm in, say, Marseilles and want to visit the Greek islands next, what can Wikivoyage tell me about my options? I dimly recall that there's a ferry to (let me think a minute ... Piraeus) from (thinking ... came up blank ... somewhere in Adriatic Italy, anyway), but where is it exactly and are there other choices? I'm not about to search 397 Mediterranean ports to find all the options. An overview page would be great. (WT-en) Pashley 02:47, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * And how will you find routes from (any Italian port) to (any Greek port) at Ferries in the Mediterranean if you don't even know what countries Bar, Bari and Bastia are in? If you want to visit Greece, you should head over to Greece:Get in:By boat, which should list all major routes into the country. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:41, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Right now I cannot find what I want in Ferries in the Mediterranean or List of ferries and, yes, it is in the Greece article. But as I said, I want to say "keep" here. I have a feeling that this could be useful as another way of seeing the available connections, if only it were organised better. Not sure how that could be done, though. (WT-en) Pashley 05:06, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * The Ferries in the Mediterranean doesnt pretend to be complete yet. If you know a interesting link which is missing, please add it. The reason why I started it, is because I wanted to go by boat from Montenegro to Portugal, and couldnt find a decent way of wikivoyage to provide me with the necesarry info. Boats are one of the most sustainable forms of travel, so I think they deserve some extra attention. -- 137.120.3.252 11:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify my delete vote, I actually would have speedy deleted this if there wasn't so much work that had gone into it. A "List of Ferries" is as pointless and unmaintainable as a "List of Buses" and we have determined in the past that we should not try to maintain such lists. Moreover, having lists like this creates serious content overlap between whatever type of article this is trying to be and our actual travel guides. I see no additional value of some enormous list of ferries, nor do I see any potential value.

The only way I would support Ferries in the Mediterranean would be if there was something distinctive and useful worth writing about Ferries in the Mediterranean (i.e., if it were a valid travel topic). I don't think that there is and anyway right now it's just another pointless transport list. International ferry routes should be listed, as Jani said, in the Get in section of country pages. If anything, it would be helpful to merge any content in this list to the destination guides before deleting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:20, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * please Peter, vote only once. Thank you for your clarification. -- 137.120.3.252 11:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Here's more clarification. There's no such thing as "voting once" or "twice" because this is not an electoral process, articles are presumed guilty until proven innocent and a majority is not necessary for deletion. Nothing is decided on Wikivoyage by majority vote, because that kills debate and consensus building. I strongly encourage you to first make your case here, rather than continuing to put work into an article that is up for deletion, as that work may well be for nothing. I also encourage you not to edit my posts, as that is bad form. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:00, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Keep, merge the two. As per Project:Bodies_of_water Ferrying the med is a travel topic. Needs work though. -- —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 217.64.242.138 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. Agree that we don't need lists that are impossible to maintain. Especially when this info already has a place, in the destination articles themselves. Anything that you want to possibly say on this page can and should be said already in those. If Rome's port is in another city, then there should be a line in the Rome article that notes that and links to that city. I definitely appreciate the work that has gone into this, it should be too much more work to move this info to the appropriate places... but it shouldn't be done pretty soon, articles are usually deleted 14 days after nomination, we're well over that now :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:09, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted - Guilty until proven innocent and no consensus was reached to keep even after being on the vfd discussion for two months. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Ferries in the Mediterranean
As per List of ferries discussion above

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:51, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Hotel Grand Contiental.JPG
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Hotel Grand Contiental.jpg

Image:Budva6.JPG
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Budva6.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Stones.JPG
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Stones.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Sitara.jpg
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Sitara house front.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:39, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:P1050383.jpg
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Knueppelski on Snake.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Ulrichskirche.jpg
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Kirche ganz.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Kuching international airport.jpg
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Kuching international airport 01.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Mataking3.JPG
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Mataking3.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Bimini-museum-wiki.JPG
Outcome: Speedy deleted - unused duplicate of Image:Bimini-museum-wiki.jpg --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:53, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Brochure logo.gif
Outcome: Speedy delete - rantal agency logo --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:53, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

PanchiKB and Panchikb
Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

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


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2008

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in September 2008. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/August 2008 or Project:Votes for deletion/October 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Medical tourism

 * Delete. Medical tourism is a reason for travel, not a way of travel.  It would be silly to have an "Ink toner travel" article that made suggestions about where on the planet you should go to make deals to get supplies of ink toner.  We shouldn't recommend places for non-emergency medical treatment.  Secondly, I think the entire issue of non-urgent medical treatment exceeds the scope of our goals.  Medical decisions can easily cost lives and we should not involve ourselves in this topic.  Given the serious amounts of money involved in this sub-industry, policing ourselves against touts (or even detecting which ones are touts) is just way more effort than it's worth.  Let's declare this subject Not Our Problem. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. I agree with Colin's statements above. I think this belongs in the same category as sex tourism and we should not carry detailed information about the topic. There are many other places on the web where people can find this kind of information if they really want. No need to have it here. --(WT-en) Nick 03:38, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. (WT-en) OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep This article is well balanced presenting both the possible benefits and drawbacks of medical tourism. It certainly doesn't "tout" anything.  What I think it could benefit from are some contributions from people who actually have travelled abroad for medical care -- someone who actually has underwent a procedure such as LASIK surgery, for example, could probably add some useful comments about how they made a decision to seek treatment overseas. Among the expat community getting medical care outside of one's home country is quite common.  Also I don't think this has anything to do with sex tourism so why make the comparison.(WT-en) SONORAMA 11:11, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Just to clarify -- I'm not saying the existing article touts. What I am saying is that if someone adds a clinic in Tijuana that sounds reasonable but is a tout, it will be too hard to detect the problem.  It's not like a Bar where one can visit it and immediately say this sucks and then delete it from Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

 * A Proposal Colin's doubts on the topic seem to be that anything medical-related is beyond the scope of Wikivoyage and the potential harm that could come if someone took bad advice from an article. In other words, the issue is not with the article itself, but rather with what potentially links to it.  I say "potentially" because as of right now the article has no links whatsoever.

 * So my proposal is this. Similar to Wikivoyage's policy against links to hotel aggregator booking sites, let's make a policy against recommending specific doctors or clinics in medical tourism articles.  Instead, appropriate links to provide might be: Links to the local-country medical association or credentialing body, links to hotels and inns that specialize in recuperative stays for medical tourism patients (such places do exist) and also links to US based international medical accreditors such as the Joint Commission International Medical tourism is a huge and growing trend, and since many travelers come to Wikivoyage first for information, it is important that we include information about this aspect of travel here. (WT-en) SONORAMA 20:32, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd be okay with the general discussion and medical association stuff. It wouldn't really work to link to hotels and inns since they tend to be associated with specific physicians that we really can't vouch for.  So in other words, I'd be okay with a policy where we never link to a medical service provider of any sort. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:49, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep I agree with User:(WT-en) Borndistinction as of course wikivoyage aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.

 * Keep. Well! Of course nowadays Medical tourism is so popular that most of the travel related websites do contain information about Medical tourism so why not wikivoyage too? Although the article needs to be plunge forward, this could be a very usable one. (WT-en) Barracuda 12:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. I agree with Colin: medical tourism is a big topic and definitely in scope, but we should keep it high-level, in the same way as we already do in the scuba diving articles: talk about the diving itself, not the operators (and certainly not the individual divemasters). However, large hospitals should still continue to be listed in city articles, the way we list them today. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep Obviously. (WT-en) Pashley 19:02, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. Medical Tourism is huge these days and if Wikivoyage aspires to be the definitive online travel guide it is something we should be trying to cover. (WT-en) Jpatokal's point about keeping it high level is something I would agree with. (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep, seems to be a valid travel topic. Agree with keeping it high-level as mentioned above.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Quick question—don't we have a disclaimer somewhere absolving Wikivoyage & contributors from lawsuits deriving from harm arising from following Wikivoyage advice? I can't seem to find that anywhere. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I just happened across it in Copyleft, and remembered reading this query back here. Perhaps there should be a link titled Disclaimer on the Main Page that links to it? (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:53, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Sorry to have wandered off topic on the vfd page, but that seems like a good idea to me. I'll copy this discussion to Talk:Main Page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep but rework before writing more articles on this subject. I'm very hesitant with this article. Per our policies/practices on travel topics, I don't understand what the rationale would be for deleting it—it is a valid way of travel, like tourism, business, studying, and other forms of travel that Wikivoyage aims to serve. To respond to the above deletion arguments: 1) Colin's point about "reason" for travel and "way" of travel is well taken, and the existing article might not be the best format to go forward with this, but I'm also hesitant to rule out the subject altogether, since we aim to serve all travelers; 2) the gravity of medical decisions is a good reason to tread lightly on the subject, but I'm not convinced it's a sufficient reason to avoid the subject; 3) As I understand it, we somewhat riskily ruled out sex tourism for subjective reasons—we don't like it (I agree)—but I don't see a pressing moral reason to avoid talking about medical tourism. But like others have said, I'm very unsure that we could successfully provide reliable advice about which medical services to use, and this is a way more serious matter than which restaurants or hotels a traveler should patronize. I agree that, at least for the time being, we should keep this strictly to a "meta" discussion of the subject. I'm not convinced that we are yet doing a great job of even that, so lets try and nail that down before wading further into treacherous terrain.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * OK, if we're keeping, can someone do the rework soon? I suspect as soon as that vfd tag is removed it will sit as-is for ages – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:35, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:04, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Diving in Thailand
Redundant vs. Scuba diving, Scuba diving in Asia and specific listings for Thailand.

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep Well... an article should contain content relating the name of the article which over here is Diving in Thailand so of course the content has specific listings for Thailand. And regarding being redundant, I think if Scuba diving can have a link to Scuba diving in Asia, Scuba diving in Australia (even though some of the contents are similar in each) then why not Scuba diving in Asia having a further link to Diving in Thailand ?

By the way, what about Scuba diving in Australia then? isn't that redundant too but it is still acceptable? What's the difference between Scuba diving in Australia and Diving in Thailand? May i know please in case i can adjust my content to match wikivoyage.--(WT-en) Borndistinction 03:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep Yes, how can you have an article on Diving/Australia but not Diving/Thailand?! Double standards? .--(WT-en) Thai-blogs

 * Keep It's one of the better travel topic articles we have.

 * Keep I'd sooner see Diving in Southeast Asia and scrap both the Asia and Thailand articles; that strikes me as the right scope. However, I'm not a diver and not volunteering to do the work, so that opinion can be ignored. (WT-en) Pashley 18:45, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. The basics on "diving in Thailand" should be covered in Thailand, and then individual destinations should be covered in those respective articles... we don't need to strip this out of the main Thailand article – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * How about using the article as a pointer? ie, keep the general info on this page, but the specific info on local articles. In this case, places such as Krabi can be listed as links rather than headings... just throwing out an idea... (WT-en) WindHorse 23:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep or merge with Scuba diving in Asia, it seems reasonable that one might take a trip to Thailand just to scuba dive and so it's a reasonable field of pursuit. (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:48, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep as list of pointers per Windhorse's suggestion. Diving in Asia seems like a much more suspect & redundant article to me, especially since the Asia article is spare & could use the writing in its "do" section. (These travel topic discussions are fun; each contributor always comes out on the same side of things, since we clearly don't agree on how to work travel topics!) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:09, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Seems that we're leaning towards keep on this one, if that's going to happen, someone should jump in and actually turn it into that golden list of pointers and remove all the redundant info that should be in scuba diving instead – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:09, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Update: Scuba diving in Asia has been merged and redirected, and Diving in Thailand cleaned up a lot, but not completely. I am trying to sort out the hierarchy of Diving guides, and it seems most useful at this stage to expand the number of destinations in Scuba diving to contain all country level destinations, and where there is no lower level article, to hold the information until there is enough to justify a country level diving guide, such as Diving in Thailand, Scuba diving in Australia, and Diving in South Africa, which is further split into regions as some of the regions have a large number of sites. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 08:41, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Karachi/Art galleries

 * Delete, non-article. Looks like content should be merged to Karachi? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:35, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted; contents merged into Karachi. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Dubai Desert Safari
This is an article about an activity, not a geographical destination. (See article content from before I blanked it.) Not appropriate per Project:What is an article?. Article was posted by a new contributor, User:(WT-en) Northtours, who may be connected with the operators of that activity. I've offered guidance, see User talk:(WT-en) Northtours. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:13, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:20, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Image:IbajayLocal.jpg, Image:TripToIbajayAnim1.jpg, & Image:TripToIbajayJeep1.jpg

 * Delete, copyvio. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:08, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Image:Struve geodetic arc.jpg
This image has three(!) different copyright notices on it and no indications that permission was obtained from any of the copyright holders, so most likely a copyvio. (WT-en) JYolkowski 21:57, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Whitefield (Scotland)
From the article's talk page: "Whitefield is NOT a city in Scotland. It is the name of a farm. This item should be deleted." I have no opinion on the truth of the statement, but if it's true, then Whitefield isn't a destination and the article should indeed be deleted. Could someone research? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Wikipedia has Whitefield as a location in Scotland's county of Perth, among other places. The location does not have an article.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I've certainly never heard of a village called Whitefield in Perthshire. The only item of note I have found with a few minutes digging on Google and Cuil is a pictish Megalith at Balhomie House, Cargill, which was moved there from a Whitefield Farm, or West Whitefield Farm. Looking at the item history page, the anonymous user who first set it up made a reference to Loch Ness (which is not in Perthshire!). There is a tiny village called Whitefield on the east bank of Loch Ness, which does have at least one Guest House (I know because I once did some business for the owners of it). However it is a tiny village (I'm sure there is no shop, cafe or pub) and given that we already have a Loch Ness article I would suggest that any listings there (not that anybody has added any listings in Whitefield) could be fitted into that article. Streetmap  lists other Whitefields in Fife, The Borders and Moray, but again they appear to be just farms. So Delete. (WT-en) Tarr3n 06:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Looking at the map again I've remembered that the guest house I visited near Loch Ness was actually in Whitebridge, NOT Whitefield. They're only a couple of miles apart. From the map, it looks like the Loch Ness Whitefield is literally one or two buildings - so this is not a valid article. Speedy delete?

Outcome: Deleted, along with its talk page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Los Angeles/Palms

 * Delete or Redirect to Los Angeles/West. This is a subdistrict -- it's part of the Westside district of Los Angeles.  I realize LA is a big city, but as far as I know, subdistricts are unprecedented.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Redirect. Getting LA straight has been on my list for a loooong time... soon soon... about to start some maps of it soon too! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:40, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Already Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 11:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Châteaux du Pin

 * This entire beautiful region around the central Loire is a bit overlooked by wikivoyage; perhaps leave this article until the area gets better coverage? --69.124.126.56 22:15, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Does not qualify as an article on it's own. Merge with nearest town before deletion? --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge with Maine-et-Loire. The nearby village has no article.  The nearest destination for which we have an article is Angers but it's 30 minutes away.  Maine-et-Loire is the region.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge to Maine-et-Loire, make this a 'redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 09:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * This is a pretty marginal redirect, but given that some people might conceivably be searching on this name, it might be useful, and does no harm. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:32, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged and Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 11:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Carronshore
It's a suburb of Falkirk, which is never likely to require hugecity status. There is no content at all in the article. On the discussion page, (WT-en) Wandering questioned it's validity as an article back in November 2007. Nobody has defended it.(WT-en) Tarr3n 11:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Suburbs aren't part of a city, though, by definition. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:26, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Maybe "suburb" means different things in different parts of the World. I guess in Wikivoyage speak I should have described it as a "District" of Falkirk, which would have avoided confusion. In any case, even if there are one or two B&Bs there they really should be listed under Falkirk - Carronshore is not a destination.(WT-en) Tarr3n 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Falkirk. As usual, look for the approach that helps the traveler, in the unlikely event that some have heard of this place but don't know its affinities to Falkirk. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:53, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 11:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Local culture

 * Delete Subject covered in each article under Understand and Respect, although I understand the Respect section is being considered for elimination and merged into Understand. (WT-en) 2old 11:38, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete I don't believe this overview will ever be a good article as it is too general. Common sense tells one that folks have different ways and different expectations in different places. As noted by Mike this should be covered on a local basis. (WT-en) OldPine 12:03, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete I agree with the above. (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:43, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 11:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All images by Pork305
People tried to contact on user talk page, but no response. uploaded a lot of images, and they're all over the place in format, and aren't likely to have been taken all by the uploader. A couple others were successfully vfd'd last year, but I think we should get rid of the whole lot – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 10:29, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Image:;joihu.jpg
 * Image:004.jpg
 * Image:01harlemhybrid.jpg
 * Image:0duddy.jpg
 * Image:0j80i=u8.jpg
 * Image:0j80idhncjgftu8.jpg
 * Image:1125133-Haiti-0.jpg
 * Image:1coastalvillage.jpg
 * Image:1freetownstreet.jpg
 * Image:1lowflying6.jpg
 * Image:1lushhills.jpg
 * Image:1ykm9.jpg
 * Image:1yuiy2.jpg
 * Image:2aberdeenbeach1.jpg
 * Image:2aberdeenbeach4.jpg
 * Image:2apchq.jpg
 * Image:2freetown7.jpg
 * Image:2ndsw.jpg
 * Image:2nfjghykdsw.jpg
 * Image:3a(22).jpg
 * Image:5thnwsouth.jpg
 * Image:6 mudstreet 480.jpg
 * Image:90049569.jpg
 * Image:Abadee1.jpg
 * Image:GROWTH03C.jpg
 * Image:Haiti55.jpg
 * Image:Koiuloiugy1.jpg
 * Image:Mistymountains2.jpg
 * Image:Ramshacklehouse.jpg
 * Image:Tdu7tfiy.jpg
 * Image:Uykoul.jpg
 * Image:YkioiSL4.jpg

 * Delete, agree with nomination. (WT-en) JYolkowski 23:12, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete, a couple of google searches shows many come from a variety of travel webpages.--(WT-en) Inas 00:59, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 12:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Image:Johnny's trip to Phil 043.JPG

 * Delete Violates image policy by showing recognizable persons. (WT-en) OldPine 07:05, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 12:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Tel Aviv/HaYarqon Street

 * Delete It's not really a district, just a street with no major importance ( Contains no mentioning of it (and thi is a good list). The article seems to have been created just for publicity purpose of a hotel. (WT-en) Arik Galansky 15:36, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. This article was also previously discussed Project:Votes_for_deletion/June_2007, but not deleted as there was reusable content. All content now seems to be part of Tel_Aviv --(WT-en) Nick 12:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

HotelsCombined

 * Delete. Not an article.  This is a web site, and the information has already been included on User:(WT-en) HotelsCombined. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:00, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete

Outcome: Deleted.

"Numburchuili Cheese Trail" & "NUMBUR CHEESE TREK"
I'm very unsure what to make of these two, but they are at the very least currently not formatted properly. Anyone know what these are? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:23, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

 * I'll add ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S TRAIL’ to the list. Inclined to delete, if for nothing but the gall of shouting titles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:38, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

 * I'd say Merge. A search on "trek" shows an insane collection of articles for trekking in Nepal — Nepal Trekking, Trekking in Nepal, Trekking in everest, Trekking in Everest, Trekking in mustang, Trekking in annapurna, Zangskar Trek, Island Peak, Jonsom-Muktinath Trek, Mt. Everest Base Camp Trek, Mt. Everest, Jomsom-Muktinath Trek, Mera Peak Climbing and Helambu Langtang Trek! Several are stubs or redirects, and quite a few have "merge" tags suggesting putting the info into the region article.

 * Can we merge all the ones I've listed and the ones under discussion here into one article? I'd prefer to see them all merged into Trekking in Nepal rather than putting the info into region articles. A big part of a Nepal trip for many people is choosing which trek or treks to go on; I think the info needed to make those choices should all be in one article, and there's clearly too much of it to fit in Nepal. (WT-en) Pashley 09:17, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete? . I'm pretty familiar with the trekking scene in Nepal, and have never heard of this trek. A Google search also failed to throw up a single entry. However, that is not to say that a new trail is not being developed, but I'm inclined to delete until more info becomes available. One reason for the confusion over treks is that many routes overlap. For example the 'Island Peak' trail pretty much follows the 'Mt. Everest Base Camp Trek' route. It is only at the final leg of the treks where the trails diverge. (WT-en) WindHorse 11:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. Firstly, apologies! These entries were my first attempts and I am getting used to the format/language etc. The"Numburchuili Cheese Trail","NUMBUR CHEESE TREK" and the‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S TRAIL’ are two UN-ILO sponsored projects currently underway to generate employment in the region beside the Everest Base Camp Trek, which is often overlooked. Websites for both treks shoould be online by the end of the month, www.iptrail.com and www.numburcheesecircuit.com. in the meantime I thought wikivoyage would be a popular forum to post info on the treks.There is a lot of demand for new treks as Everest/Annapurna/Langtang are so over crowded, and completely lack any cultural diversity. Please Don't delete!
 * There are an insane number of articles on trekking in nepal, it would be great to merge them all and/or organise the Nepal page better so it is not so clogged.
 * Also the link to Mount Kailash in the Nepal page can be disputed, it is afterall in Tibet. (WT-en) Ramechhap 13:13, 15 September 2008

 * Delete.Please delete the glaring "NUMBUR CHEESE TREK", "Numburchuili Cheese Trail" and ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S TRAIL’. I have replaced them with the 'Numbur Cheese Circuit' and the ‘Indigenous Peoples Trail'… Rookie Error!

 * OK, I cleaned up some, fixed the rookie errors, so now we have only articles with sensible names: Numbur Cheese Circuit and Indigenous Peoples Trail. Do we want to keep those? If so, they need de-touting, see Project:Don't tout. (WT-en) Pashley 02:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep - based on Ramechhap's explanation and Pashley's clean up...(WT-en) WindHorse 04:18, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Both people who originally said "delete" above, Peter & Windhorse, now agree to keep. So do I, though I think some de-touting is in order and in the longer term, maybe quite a bit of merging. Anyone else want to speak up? Or can we close the vfd? (WT-en) Pashley 16:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome -- kept under new names. (WT-en) Pashley 09:20, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Natchez Trace & 600 Antebellum mansions in Natchez, MS

 * Unsure & Delete. The Natchez Trace looks like a pretty straightforward itinerary topic, but is someone planning to write it? And, if not, are we willing to keep the article as is? I think 600 Antebellum mansions in Natchez, MS is a pretty clear "merge & delete" case, (merge to Natchez) but I figured I'd list it here alongside the first vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:55, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I've deleted the mansions article, but Natchez Trace certainly could be a viable itinerary. I'd say keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Natchez Trace kept as an Itinerary, 600 Antebellum mansions deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Spaceships_Campervans

 * Delete. Another ad, from the same source as above. --(WT-en) Inas 20:16, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete. I'd say speedy, but haven't done it since it is listed here. Other opinions? (WT-en) Pashley 22:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Our deletion policy allows for speedy on businesses – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Spaceships

 * Delete. Another ad, from the same source as above --(WT-en) Inas 20:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Potato

 * Delete. Not a valid travel article topic. (WT-en) Nrms 10:53, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Bush

 * Delete. Not a valid travel article topic. (WT-en) Nrms 10:54, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Image:Hunza flag.jpg

 * Delete. Flags below the country level are not relevant for a travel guide – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete. Flags are not relevant for a travel guide period. ---(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 15:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

SAARC

 * Delete; not relevant for the traveller. We do not have articles on ASEAN or NATO; this is outside our domain. 03:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 15:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)