text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2012

How to buy a diamond ring in Antwerp
Page has vfd template, but I see no listing here. Article strikes me as borderline. Is it a legit travel topic or too far down a slippery slope? (WT-en) Pashley 19:27, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * Merge to Antwerp. This seems like a questionable topic for a travel article and is one that will likely invite spam from jewelry shops. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:21, 24 January 2012 (EST)
 * Keep. I can see why you would question it, but since the diamond industry is so huge in Antwerp and buying them is such a primary tourist activity, I can't come up with a good reason why it can't be a travel topic. On the other hand, for those who are interested, it seems a good piece of advise. It sure needs some guarding to prevent spam, but that's true for many articles and shouldn't be a reason for deletion. We could just agree on the talk page that the article should contain no listings, or something. As an aside, I really think we should not welcome new contributors who are making good edits with a vfd. If such a nomination is needed, they should at least get a welcome and an explanation first. It seems that we just scared this one away :-( (WT-en) Justme 06:54, 25 January 2012 (EST)
 * Would anyone mind if this discussion is moved to Talk:How to buy a diamond ring in Antwerp? Based on existing discussion it sounds like at worst this would become a merge and is no longer a deletion candidate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:19, 12 February 2012 (EST)
 * No objection here. (WT-en) Pashley 20:11, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Kept (for now). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Weekend in Oranjestad, Aruba at The Tamarjin

 * Merge. This one was speedy deleted, but it seems to have been created in good faith as part of a student project so I've restored it and put it up for normal discussion.  Info about a specific resort shouldn't be in its own article per Project:What is an article, so the relevant bits should be merged to the appropriate city article(s) and then the original article deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:20, 7 March 2012 (EST)
 * Merge and delete. This is clearly a business promotion so as an article it should be deleted soon. There are indeed some bits about the surroundings, those could be merged into Oranjestad. (WT-en) Justme 13:11, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Aruba. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:58, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Foxwoods Resort & Casino and Foxwoods Resort Casino

 * Delete. Per Project:What is an article individual businesses are not given their own articles.  (note: due to the ampersand, to view the first article use the link ). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:41, 8 March 2012 (EST)

 * Delete. Agreed. And it doesn't need its own article, anyway. It's pretty effectively covered in Ledyard_(Connecticut), and if any information should be added, it should go there. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:50, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:58, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Driving in the San Francisco Bay Area

 * Delete. What information is here should simply be merged into Bay Area, and although we do have a few other "Driving in _____" articles, they tend to be national in scale, with only one exception (below).  -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * Delete. Unless someone can come up with a reason why driving in San Francisco is really distinguishable from other U.S. cities, I agree with (WT-en) D. Guillaime --(WT-en) Inas 19:38, 8 January 2012 (EST)
 * Bill Cosby had a lot to say about "Driving in San Francisco". =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:31, 8 January 2012 (EST)
 * Delete. If there are particularities (like useful radio stations), they can easily fit in the city article. (WT-en) Justme 07:03, 25 January 2012 (EST)
 * Merge to Bay Area (California). The info about freeways and traffic should be in the region article, but for SEO purposes this is probably a useful redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:22, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Bay Area (California). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Driving in Los Angeles County

 * Merge (if any)/delete. Some of this information could move to the Get Around sections of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County, but I don't think an encyclopedic list of numbered LA freeways is too useful anywhere.  This article had minor discussion on its talk page about its usefulness back in 2003/4, but only between two people and it never went anywhere.  -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * Merge and redirect. This is an old article that turns up in many searches now, so it should not be deleted per the "delete vs. redirect" guidelines.  Merge and redirect seems like the correct approach. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:13, 7 January 2012 (EST)

 * Weak Keep. Possibly U.S. residents view this more objectively, but I think driving in L.A. rates as more than just  transportation, and an overview of the freeways comes in handy for a first time driver there.  The article itself seems to be more or less readable, and contains useful information to the traveller.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:25, 8 January 2012 (EST)

 * Merge and delete/redirect. There's not much here that's actually specific to LA (rush hour is more than an hour? people speed? slower traffic keep right? use a map or a GPS?) --(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)

 * Merge and Delete the purpose of a redirect should direct people to articles with pertinent information NOT just articles sharing names. Does our Los Angeles County article really have such great information about driving that a redirect would make sense? There is nothing more frustrating than links and redirects to articles that don't give the information that the redirect implies is there. If it is redirected, then those Google people who really want driving tips will be mad at our misleading redirect. No reason for us to redirect. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 06:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * For those who are suggesting this article be deleted, I think Project:Deletion policy indicates that it should definitely NOT be deleted ("Redirecting non-articles, when possible, is usually preferred to deletion because a) anyone can make a redirect and b) redirects may help with search engine optimization."). If we are going to delete this article then the deletion policy should probably be updated to include cases like this one (namely, articles with SEO value), but until that happens I don't think a delete is appropriate based on existing policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:33, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * I'm in favour of keeping, but since when does "redirecting non-articles when possible is usually preferred", equate to "policy indicates it should definitely NOT be deleted". Again, the policy is clearly written to guide people in voting and leading to a consensus.  If people haven't read the policy, by all means point them to it.  However, I think most people are aware that we prefer to redirect.  If they have that understanding, but identify this as a case where we delete instead, then that is well within the bounds of the policy IMO.   --(WT-en) Inas 17:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

 * Turning your argument around, what in the deletion policy supports deletion of this article? It's a usable travel topic, so it does not fall under the deletion guidelines for outline travel topics.  Beyond that, I don't see anything else in the policy that would support deletion, and so far people aren't citing the deletion policy in their arguments.  The policies have been discussed to death and represent current site consensus, so in cases where there is disagreement it seems like it would make sense to rely on them to guide decision making. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

 * Perhaps merge this and the one above into a single "Driving in California" travel topic, and redirect both there? (WT-en) Pashley 01:45, 27 February 2012 (EST)
 * But what would such an article say, and why would its information belong there and not in United States? I've driven in California, and it's pretty much exactly like any other state in the union. -- (WT-en) BigPeteB 09:45, 27 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Los Angeles County. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2006

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

Testen

 * Delete - An orphan page. Testen is probably German for Testing. A google search turns up 22 million references, most of them in German. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:11, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 08:36, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

Lodging

 * Misplaced sleep entry. Where does this belong anyway? (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:35, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. This same sales pitch was found (I've edited it down) in the geographically appropriate Ludington article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:44, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:51, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Hillsong

 * Content was "Australian Christian Music Group" I think maybe someone misread "t-r-a-v-e-l" as "p-e-d-i-a" ;-) (WT-en) Majnoona 22:02, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
 * LOL, Maj ... I think you can rapid-delete this one without being pilloried ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:06, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I was kinda hoping I could find a place with that name, like with Cherry, but doesn't seem like it... (WT-en) Majnoona 22:16, 2 May 2006 (EDT)

Aerolineas Argentinas
Not an article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:03, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. - Sapphire
 * Delete. (WT-en) Majnoona 08:39, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Pattaya/Bay of Pattaya

 * Delete. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Pattaya/Buddha Hill

 * Delte. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Pattaya/North Pattaya

 * Delte. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Pattaya/South Pattaya

 * Delete. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Rzym

 * Delete. Rzym means Rome in Polish, but this is not Polish Wikivoyage anyway. Besides, the original content was only wikispam. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:43, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Majnoona 16:52, 4 May 2006 (EDT)

Travel to Switzerland

 * User indicated in the summary field that the content was copyrighted. I blanked it and put a note on their talk page. (WT-en) Majnoona 16:52, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. Maybe the note saying "This content has been provided and approved for posting on Wikivoyage" at the bottom of the page means the content has been released under cc-by-sa-1. However, in fact there seems to be little in that article not already covered on the actual Switzerland article and we don't need that kind of overlapping. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 18:03, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:52, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Cryptosporidiosis

 * Created in March 2005, expanded by Huttite, but showed up in Orphaned pages only recently. Somewhat puzzling, but is a rather specific disease, so as an article has no place in Wikivoyage. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:30, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:34, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

Pumpkin Notch

 * Can't find the place. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:33, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. I looked for it myself and couldn't find it or anything we could redirect. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:49, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Brookings-Harbor listings

 * Chan's Restaurant
 * Great American Smokehouse
 * O'Holleran's
 * Rancho Viejo
 * Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill
 * Smugglers Cove
 * Toreros Mexican Restaurant

A whole slew of articles were created for the Eat and Drink lisings in Brookings-Harbor. I thought it easier to lump them together in one VFD. I've started moving the content into the main destination article. Any reason why these shouldn't go quickly? (WT-en) Majnoona 23:50, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Nope, go ahead and speedy-nuke as soon as the content is rescued. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:19, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Speedy Delete. I just want to say thanks to (WT-en) Josh Whaley for the contribution of the Brookings-Harbor article and hope that his efforts contiunue. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:27, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I've copied the last of the content to Brookings-Harbor. Now that I have the power {cue dramatic music} I'll go zap them. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:02, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
 * However, I was unable to delete Mattie's Pancake & Omlette or Holmes Sea Cove Bed & Breakfast, presumably due to the ampersand in the page names. (Replacing "&" with "%26" didn't help.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:38, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

Holmes Sea Cove Bed & Breakfast
Not an article. Violates naming conventions too. No content. Swift delete, I think. (WT-en) Pashley 19:27, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I already tried speedy-deleting it as part of the clean-up from the Brookings-Harbor misunderstanding above, but can't because of the "&" in the page name. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:18, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

Red

 * Troll created page. Apparently "Red" is within the vocabulary of the troll who likes to make substub pages. Wikipedia does not acknowledge such a place. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:18, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. I'd even say obvious vandalism, speedy delete. (But am not so confident in that to do it myself.) -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:04, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I was afraid someone might cough up a "Red, Outer Yukon" or something. I case of doubt, better to go through the vfd process. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:39, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:52, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I looked but could not find! (WT-en) Majnoona 21:49, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Saxon Hill

 * At best an attraction, Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Colin 14:25, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 12:59, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Winter olympics 1968

 * We don't need an article for this. Yet-another-list about Winter Olympic sites could be some sort of article maybe, especially if mixed in with a helping of general advice about such places.  But not one article per-ancient miscapitalized event. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:51, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 16:54, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

Gera Gera

 * "A manga cafe" in Tokyo. Should be listed in Tokyo directly. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:29, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Berlin/Museuminsel

 * Delete. Originally, a sub district, which didn't constitute a need for a district. I surgically operated on this article and several articles to create a more accurate article in my sandbox. I then imported that into Berlin/Mitte. - (WT-en) Sapphire 11:29, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Ok, It is an attraction in Berlin that needs explanation. I will improve the text. (WT-en) Jan 07:035, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Berlin/Tiergarten

 * Delete. Originally, a sub district, which didn't constitute a need for a district. I surgically operated on this article and several articles to create a more accurate article in my sandbox. I then imported that into Berlin/Mitte. - (WT-en) Sapphire 11:29, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Agree. I will work on this one,too (WT-en) Jan 07:37, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Berlin/Unter den Linden

 * Delete. Originally, a sub district, which didn't constitute a need for a district. I surgically operated on this article and several articles to create a more accurate article in my sandbox. I then imported that into Berlin/Mitte. - (WT-en) Sapphire 11:29, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Agree. (WT-en) Jan 07:37, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Brussels National Airport

 * Not big enough to deserve an article. -- (WT-en) DanielC 14:46, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Merge into Brussels and delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:44, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Merge into Brussels and redirect to Brussels, then you don't need to delete. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:11, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
 * The redirect is done. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill, coming to you via IP address, as I can't login from this machine. 128.165.144.60 12:00, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

Packing list

 * This page is of no practical use. It is useless as an actual packing list, because it includes items that are useful only for some kinds of travel and omits items that are useful in others.  It's one person's comprehensive things-I-might-ever-bring packing list, slightly edited.  In fact, most times when people make good-faith attempts to edit this page, one of its guardians reverts it, even when the edits are not the kind of blatant personalization that originally inspired this unilateral, no-discussion pattern of reversion.  I believe this is inappropriate, but my attempt to question it on the Talk page has been mostly ignored.  The combination of this page's uselessness and the fact that it inspires this kind of behavior by otherwise responsible editors are why I think Wikivoyage would be better without it.  Delete.  - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:47, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Oppose. Sure, this list isn't useful as a packing list for most people -- but that's because no list could be.  This is more a list of things to consider packing, and in most cases the user can cross each useless item out in one second and move on.  I have lists that are just for me, and when I use them I do the same thing even though they are already tailored for me -- cross out the items which don't apply to my trip of the day.  For me, an online list like this could have been the start for one of my lists when I originally wrote it.  Yeah, I would've modified the heck out of it, but it's a start and includes things that I forgot were important until the third or fourth revision of my personal list.  Could this article be improved?  Of course, but we don't delete articles which could be travel topics -- we only delete ones which could never become a topic. I could however, support renaming this to "How to make a packing list" and adapting it to the new, improved topic. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:25, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't think this article (current name and contents) is a valid travel topic, nor can it be. The premise of the article is unsound: a completely generic packing list is as pointless as a restaurant list for Europe.  It tries too hard to think of everything, and inevitably fails at it.  More focused and in-depth guides (e.g. Packing for a cruise) could be useful.  Now, you say this article could be improved, but I don't see any substantial improvement happening in the 2+ years since it was created (despite a lot of editing)... unless of course you count the addition of a friendly red warningbox telling people that they're not allowed to take anything out, but may only add to the list, to make it more "complete".  I don't think that will make it useful.  I'm sorry, but the emperor here has packed no clothes.  This article was DOA, and it's time we stopped reverting it and pronounced it dead. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:15, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Oppose. The list could obviously be improved, but shouldn't be deleted. A packing list is included in all guidebooks that I have read because it is useful - it propts you to think about things even if you won't need them. This list does the same - it helps you think and you mentally discard/ignore the items that don't apply. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:33, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * It actually just makes me marvel at the things someone inexplicably found "essential" or "very useful"... and the irony that "OCD meds" somehow got left off the list. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:15, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Makes you think about what need to take. Can be a quick reference for people like me that have a mind melt just before time to start packing. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:50, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. Wow, this page has really changed from when I voted. To be honest, I think the page is worthless now. The other page could have been tweeked, but I voted for a list not this! I know Todd has strong feelings about what was there before. I don't, but I want my vote to be clear. The list is much better for me, it is quick, makes you think. I'm a scatter brained and the "list" is much better for me. I would not use what is there now. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 10:56, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep, but edit into something more sensible. I've been travelling for years without much of the stuff it calls "essential". (WT-en) Pashley 04:23, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 08:28, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Comment: Since it seems there are several people who want to keep this train-wreck, could I ask you folks to engage in editing it, instead of just reverting it when someone who disagrees with your no-deletions policy tries to improve it? I tried to address the question of whether this page was of use on Talk:Packing list, and suggested an alternative that I thought would be more useful, and only Maj responded; none of the sentinels who've been page-protecting it did.  She asked for a plan for how this page (or any page about packing) could be done so it would actually work; no one offered any.  Just another immediate revert of the next anonymous edit.  Project:consensus says "Unless it is clearly vandalism or graffiti, simply reverting somebody else's changes will normally be unhelpful."  When someone removes "recipes" or "resumes" or "tongue cleaner" from the list, that isn't vandalism; please stop treating it as such. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:10, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I looked at my history with the article; I reverted changes like deleting "bottle of water" without explanation. Also deleting "business cards" and adding "Spanish phrase book" without explanation.  While not malicious vandalism, this makes the article worse, not better.  I have no problem reverting that.  It's hard, if not impossible, to discuss these changes with anonymous users who don't leave comments.  The issue of improving the article is a separate one...if a stub article keeps getting vandalized, do I have a responsibility to improve it if I revert changes and vote "Keep"?  -- (WT-en) Jonboy 10:31, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
 * If someone makes selective edits such as removing a few items and/or inserting a few, that's not vandalism. That's a disagreement.  Maybe you believe that removing "business cards" makes it a worse list, but that anon editor doesn't (and neither do I).  The appropriate solution to that kind of general difference of opinion is to discuss it on the article's Talk page, which is what I tried to do. If someone is going to put a page on their watchlist and revert changes to it, they have a responsibility to pay attention to its Talk page, in case someone expresses a differing opinion, and if that happens: address it.  Yes, discussing changes with anonymous editors is hard... but discussing them with other regular editors is not. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:44, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep and tag for cleanup. Would be helpful if sections such as Cruise, Europe, North America, etc were formed, with an intro about how writing your own packing list is helpful in preparing for a trip. One puppy's opinion. (WT-en) KillerChihuahua 11:02, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep, in line with Colin's opinion above. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:29, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Withdrawn. In keeping with the consensus that something should be kept there, and the general disatisfaction with what's there now, I'm going to take a stab at rebuilding it as a how-to/ideas article (rather than a checklist). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep the new version. It was painfully pointless to continue tinkering with a universal packing list. (WT-en) Todd's converting it into a series of queries about a particular individual's specific trip should be sufficient to get most reasonable travelers thinking about what to pack. (WT-en) SHC 18:09, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep the new version. (WT-en) Pashley 02:54, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
 * So this is a rare consensus achieved. I am closing this VFD as Keep — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:20, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

British Isles

 * Why on earth do we have this? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:04, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Oppose. The "British Isles" is a well known geographic term and describes a general destination. It doesn't have to be a long or comprehensive article, just point you in the right direction. A few people take umbrage over the term, but the present "health warning" should mollify them. I do agree that it is a bit of an outdated term, but not strongly enough to justify deleting it. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:37, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Wouldn't it make sense to redirect this to United Kingdom? Since Éire doesn't want to be called by this name, and Man and the Channels are officially loyal to the Crown, would anyone be seriously offended by that?  (Not rhetorical: I'm asking.) If they would, why not instead limit this page to a disambig-style explanation that the term is confusing, and refer them directly to the Republic, the Kingdom, etc. rather than treating it like this, as a level of our geographic hierarchy? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:39, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep since it's a well known geographical term, but convert to a disambig page for Ireland and UK since it's an archaic term. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:05, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I like Colin's idea. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:49, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Me too. (WT-en) Pashley 22:24, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I tried to convert it to a disambig page. If people like it, I'll close this vfd. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:09, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Caherconnell Stone Fort

 * An attraction, not a destination. I've merged the content with Burren, where it belongs. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 14:40, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
 * In which case, simply redirect it to Burren. That way, people who've heard of the attraction but not the destination can be routed to the information painlessly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:25, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I converted to the redirect. I'll let someone close out this vfd if they agree. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 22:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

Ban Sok Mai

 * The page creation troll is a well-known non-speller. So even if this place exists, which Wikipedia does not acknowledge, it's still probably spelled wrong. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:20, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep and redirect. According to, it's a legitimate alternate spelling for Ban Sok Noi. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:02, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Okay, keep then. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:04, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * This raises an interesting question: what to do about misspelled pages when the page with the "correct" spelling doesn't exist yet? As far as I can tell, the standard approach for misspellings/alternative spellings is to redirect to the page for the correct spelling, but we can't do that here.  If somebody would take a crack at starting Ban Sok Noi, I'll do the redirect, but I really can't see keeping this one as a stand-alone. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:55, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I've moved Ban Sok Mai to Ban Sok Noi, put in an outline and I am now closing the VFD. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:41, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

Chunking
Old name of Chongqing is Chungking. I was creating that as a redirect to current name, bungled it and created Chunking as well.
 * I am thinking just redirect this as well. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:27, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep as a redirect. Google shows >70Khits for "chunking china", so it's a common (mis)transliteration. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:42, 25 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Now redirected, per spelling policy: if there's a reasonable chance that the spelling error might be repeated, then just redirect it. (BTW, there seems to be a strange glitch, maybe of the "that's not a bug, that's a feature" variety, with doing a redirect while a vfd banner is present. That's fixed too.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:16, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Bird flu, Avain Flu, Avian Flu, Pandemic

 * Pure spam. I'm blanking them.(WT-en) SHC 19:50, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 16:13, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
 * These quite clearly qualify for a rapid delete. I'm working on 'em. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:22, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Orr's Island

 * According to Wikipedia [], this troll-created article is part of a town. Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Colin 10:58, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is a pretty small island, but it is well known in that area and I think it could be expanded. Bailey Island that is mentioned in the WikiPedia reference is even more well know. I have been thinking of creating a region or sub-region in Maine to cover the many islands. Of course Orr's Island would be included. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:48, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Looks like the path forward is to redirect to Harpswell, the town allegedly containing this island. I've taken the liberty. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:06, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Frenchville

 * Delete. Too small (no hotels, motels, b&bs and campgrounds, as far as I can tell.), no content -- (WT-en) Jonboy 09:48, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. If it's a "real town" that trumps the place-to-sleep rule of thumb in my book. See Cherry for an example. (WT-en) Majnoona 11:21, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Proper template now added. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:01, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:11, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * VFD banner removed; it's a keeper. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:45, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

John glenn alberta

 * Delete. We dont cover individuals (see Project:Goals and non-goals and Project:What is an article?) Wikipedia may be a better place for this. (WT-en) Majnoona 00:40, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:28, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I think this one qualifies for rapid deletion. Going once, going twice ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:37, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

Yamato Colony

 * Ghost town. Not an article per Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Colin 11:11, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Interesting place tho, is it worth a redirect to Delray Beach? (WT-en) Majnoona 21:51, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I just created the Delray Beach article, so will do this redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:00, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Image:Telluride_rentals.jpg

 * Delete. A web graphic for a vacation rental service http://www.telluride-rentals.com/, not even used by the editor who uploaded it. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:42, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:45, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Image:Wieliczka-saltmine-kinga.jpg

 * GFDL from Wikimedia commons, uploaded by our old friend User:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:15, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City overland
Overlaps with Overland from Singapore to Shanghai. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:02, 10 May 2006 (EDT) Note: I've changed my mind and am now in favor of keeping this. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Keep. I think we need to work out what to do for itineraries that overlap, but I don't think that deleting the shortest segments is the answer. --(WT-en) Evan 22:18, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * If the shorter segment is more intensive or somehow covers matters from a different viewpoint, I would agree. For example, a longer journey might be accomplished in fewer days and pick fewer sights to see.  In the absence of an explaination like that, I'm leaning toward merge and delete. -- (WT-en) Colin
 * Isn't Project:Itineraries a better place to discuss this? I think the nature of itineraries, as we have them mapped out, makes them very likely to have overlapping and duplicate information. For example, we have itineraries that cover the same area but with different time periods. I also think that for someone who's going from Bangkok to Saigon, Overland from Singapore to Shanghai has a lot of information they don't need, and probably leaves out some information they may want. I think dupes in itineraries are OK, since mostly they should link out to destination guides for detailed information. Finally, I think that some of the non-destination-guide content like travel topics and itineraries need more in the way of growth, not pruning. Let's wait until having too many itineraries is a problem before we start hacking out duplicates. --(WT-en) Evan 19:38, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Singapore to Shanghai is a completely different itinerary. 84.9.98.130 18:40, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Could you please elaborate on this? On the face of it this new itinary is completely covered in the prior article.  Why do you think we need a separate article for this segment rather than just incorporating this content into the older article? -- (WT-en) Colin 19:11, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Yeah, this is my question too. I'm OK with different itineraries that cover different routes, but having different pages for exactly the same route just seems redundant.  Would it be an acceptable compromise to chop up Singapore-Shanghai into Singapore-Bangkok, Bangkok-HCMC, HCMC-Shanghai legs? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:23, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Delete. Move some of the information into Overland from Singapore to Shanghai. Some of the more specific stuff can go in Cambodia or the cities. (WT-en) Pashley 21:04, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

 * I think the suggestion of chopping up Singapore-Shangai into Singapore-BKK, BKK-HCMC and HCMC-Shanghai and then incorporating the two itineraries we now have into those three is the best suggestion! It solves both the overlap problem and the problem of irrelevance of a singapore-shanghai itinerary for someone travelling out of Bangkok. (WT-en) Piroco 12:25, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Keep. The shorter segment is in fact more intensive and matters more from a different viewpoint, so Colin's test is fulfilled, I think. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:45, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

 * I think not. This not only overlaps the Singapore-Shanghai intinerary, it also covers almost exactly the same ground as One month in Southeast Asia. (WT-en) Pashley 20:44, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Have a look at how it's been organized now. I've followed up on Jpatokal's suggestion to create singapore-bkk, bkk-hcmc and hcmc-shanghai, that should suit everybody's needs. Overlap is unavoidable, both with city guides and with other suggested itineraries. I don't think the way around it is to delete and merge as much as possible. Let the hundred flowers blossom. (WT-en) Piroco 14:53, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

 * I have looked and do not like the "solution". As I see it, One month in Southeast Asia plus the various city and country entries cover everything that's in Bangkok-HCMC. Travelling Bangkok-HCMC is just part of wandering around SE Asia; there is no reason to have it as a separate itinerary. S'pore-Shanghai, on the other hand, is long enough to be interesting. I'm tempted to restore it to its earlier form, but will await comment and perhaps consensus. (WT-en) Pashley 10:00, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Am I the only one getting a feeling this is turning into some kind of turf war? Quite frankly a bit tired of spending my time on an unproductive debate over structure, it doesn't feel very constructive to have a never ending debate about where to put stuff, and I'm not really sure it is the most important thing we should be worried about either. Pashley's arguments are nonsensical; why merge BKK-HCMC into the One month in Southeast Asia which is, at this point, only a stub? Why not rather link to a more extensive itinerary from the list of suggestions on the one month-article? Why keep singapore-shanghai, when the route covered is more accessible to more people if it's split up, but will be difficult to find if we keep it as it was? If you only want to travel one leg of it, you're not likely to look at a singapore-shanghai article if where you want to go is bangkok to siem reap. Why are long itineraries 'more interesting' than shorter ones? Well, I guess it's a view of sorts, but it certainly isn't very well founded. Sorry, I don't get it --- are we in some kind of turf war or are we still trying to make a travel site?  I need to be reminded. (WT-en) Piroco 00:09, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
 * You're stumbled onto a little gray area in Wikivoyage's policies, so what you're seeing now is people trying to figure out how we should handle not just this, but future cases as well. The correct thing to do, though, is to keep the article and continue the policy discussion on Project:Itineraries. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
 * What gave me the feeling of a turf war, and irritated me fairly severely, was the retaliatory vfd on S'pore to Shanghai, followed by splitting it up before any consensus had been reached. Possibly parts of my response were over-reaction. Any further discussion on Project:Itineraries. (WT-en) Pashley 02:23, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Keep. To make the consensus clear, I've changed my mind too. This intinerary is clearly a good contribution, and we should keep it. We do have some issues to sort out — the general problem of intinerary overlap, whether splitting S'pore to Shanghai was actually a good idea, whether some stuff currently in this itinerary should be in destination articles — but only Jpatokal and I ever advocated deleting this one, so now that we've both rethought that, there's consensus. (WT-en) Pashley 11:40, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
 * OK, so this discussion is copied to the article's talk page, and I've removed the VFD banner from the article itself. The VFD nomination is going away shortly, unless there are objections. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:44, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

Berlin/Wedding

 * Delete. Former district of Berlin now part of Berlin/Mitte So far no content(WT-en) Jan 09:08, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:57, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Berlin/Scheunenviertel

 * Delete. Part of the district Mitte and few content. I will transfer the rest to Mitte. (WT-en) Jan 09:08, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:57, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Berlin/Alexanderplatz

 * Delete. Part of the Mitte district and mostly redundant content to Mitte. I transfered already the usuable content. (WT-en) Jan 09:35, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:57, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delte. Jan and I are reformatting the districts so we don't have sub-districts. (WT-en) Sapphire 17:51, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

Image:Altavas.jpg

 * Incorrect PD tag, the source helpfully given clearly asserts copyright . — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:48, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 14:56, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

Marshall Point Lighthouse

 * Attraction, not a destination. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 10:05, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Travel with Rick Steves

 * Delete. A fine source of travel information, but Wikivoyage is not an index of travel information. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:46, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Travelcast
I don't think this is a sensible travel topic, it'll just degenerate into a link listing, but it's a bit borderline. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:53, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

 * I find these travelcasts useful for trip planning. If they shouldn't be here, please feel free to delete. (WT-en) ToddCostella 12:57, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Unfortunately (?) the Project:External links policy is quite strict on this point -- there are lots of things out there that are useful for the traveler, but Wikivoyage aims to be self-contained, and URL to a podcast isn't going to do you much good when out there traveling. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:04, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Gotcha, thanks for the feedback. (WT-en) ToddCostella 13:06, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Whether we decide to delete this or not, Travel with Rick Steves, an instance of a travelcast, should not be kept. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:13, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:46, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Gonomad.com
An encyclopedia entry about a travel web site. Not what Wikivoyage is about. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:20, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:46, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * This is an interesting story about a travel website and its evolution, it's of interest to people who like to read about travel on the web.
 * Delete. See Project:Goals and non-goals. (WT-en) SHC 18:41, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. Wikivoyage is not here to promote travel web sites, which is what this article is obviously intended to do. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:53, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:08, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Image:RSA Kalk Bay.jpg

 * No model release. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:18, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Jonboy 14:55, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
 * It's gone, reluctantly. Great character photo, but lacking the model release, what's to do? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:52, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

Youngs Corner

 * Delete, not an actual city despite text which says otherwise. It's also a Highly Improbable spelling, which is typical of the "look at me mom! look! look at me!" article creation troll. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:21, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep
 * Yeah, he's off his meds again. But I'm afraid this is an actual speck on the map.  I'm not voting to keep because I don't think it's significant enough to create an article for, but I'm not voting to delete either because site policy apparently requires us to keep pointless articles for specks on the map.  - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:10, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Well, since Wikipedia has an article for pretty much every census-designated place (which is something even less than a small town), I'm guessing this is literally a corner, which is not an article. Most of the Google hits for this seem to be of the "we rent cars, so create a car rental page for every location name in the USGS database" kinds of things. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:32, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * It's not so much that the spelling is "highly improbable" (Tysons Corner in suburban Washington, DC unequivocally exists, has nearly 20,000 people, and would qualify as a destination were it not in the DC metro area), but it's just not a destination. In principle it could be redirected to Auburn (Maine), which seems to be the closest actual town, but I'm OK with just deleting it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:03, 29 May 2006 (EDT)

Image:ChanthapanyaHotelRoom.jpg

 * The inside of a hotel room. Not a relevant image. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:06, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. Has nothing to do with the destination except for one hotel trying to hawk its wares.  At least they're up-front about it ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. On the Japanese version, it's common practice to have pictures of lodgings, and I don't see why we couldn't do the same in English (or other versions) -- it is, after all, nice for the traveler to see what they get for their money. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:39, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Hotels' own pages, many of which are linked on destination pages, are there precisely so the traveler can "see what they get for their money" at the particular hotel. That's not what we are here for, and this isn't Japanese Wikivoyage.  Leaving this one in sets up an obvious slippery slope, unless, to quote Project:Image policy, it is "necessary to get across a point or impression" pertaining to the destination as a whole.  I don't see it.  This is an advertisement, and it doesn't belong. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
 * To throw my two cents in - we could use this image for Hotels, but that article already has an example of an average hotel room. We probably should delete the image as it doesn't have any info about its license. - Sapphire
 * Delete. I don't have a problem with photos of lodgings if they're particularly interesting (e.g. a hostel in a 12-century castle) or generally informative (e.g. this is what a typical Freedonian motel room is like), but providing this level of information about listings is a bit of mission-creep that I don't support. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:50, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

Orrs Island

 * He's baaack. We just resolved Orr's Island (via redirect) earlier this week; see discussion in Project:Votes for deletion/May 2006 for details.  Any reason to treat this identical non-destination differently? -- User:(WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:00, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I already redirected under the assumption that Orrs Island and Orr's Island should be handled the same way. It seems it would be setting a dangerous precedent if every spelling deviation of every troll had to be discussed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:15, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Works for me. I hereby withdraw the nomination. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:59, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

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

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2006


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2007

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

Costa rica attractions

 * See the one-word content. Speedy delete... (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 13:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome: Speedy delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Beaches in Goa

 * Delete - Goa's destinations are probably 90% beach, so essentially this article competes too much with Goa itself. It also doesn't make sense as a region article, since Goa is tiny and, again, 90% of the whole states destinations would be listed in this one region. I've divided the state into North Goa and South Goa, and if we need further division at some point we can subdivide those - There's still some work to be done though moving the info from this article into the appropriate places, if we vote to delete. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete for reasons given by Cacahuate. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete I've never been a big fan of this article. I think it should be merged with Goa or a region article. (WT-en) Maj 11:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome: Info merged into Goa and articles under Goa. Deleted, also deleted Beaches of Goa --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

From Iles Malouines
Not an article, as described in Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 17:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) WindHorse 23:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:26, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Chcc1.jpg

 * Delete. No copyright information or author attribution. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 22:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete' (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. We also don't even know what it is.  The same applies to Image:170704.jpg and Image:170704-1-.jpg, which were uploaded along with this one. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Logo marca andrea rotta.gif

 * Delete - probably has a copyright, and not something necessary for WT. --(WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. An advert. Probably worth a speedy delete. -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:32, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Hopen
According to our Project:What is an article? policy, this shouldn't be an article as you cannot sleep there. According to Wikipedia there are cabins there for the weather team, but it is otherwise uninhabited and Svalbard states that it is uninhabited... Do we need to tighten up our guidelines or do we delete this? I'm not sure it's a great idea to delete this - if we do, we have to start deleting all wilderness articles... -- (WT-en) Tim 19:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep -- just read a bit further down to the exceptions section... we should keep this. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete -- I don't see how the exceptions section justifies this? It's uninhabited (except for the weather station), has no tourist facilities or sights of interest, and requires special permits and a custom Arctic expedition to get to.  Neither do the other similar islands in the archipelago: in the unlikely event that they start to spill out of the main Svalbard article, they should be lumped into Outer Islands (Svalbard) or some such. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Not every splotch of land in the ocean is a destination.  Jani's solution seems correct. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Svalbard. We have (very brief) articles for some other rocks in the ocean with no public accommodations, but that's only because they're on the standard list of countries and territories (so people might go looking for articles about them), and they have no nearby landmasses (so they can't be easily included and redirected to anything). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Svalbard. An article that will never exceed outline status probably isn't worth keeping around, but at the same time a redirect keeps someone from recreating it in the future. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * OK, you guys talked me into it. I've done the redirect and will close the books on this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Israeli Stamp Stigma
Not an article as Project:What is an article? describes. If true, info should be integrated into relevant country articles, however this should be verified first. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete - it's definitely true, as most Muslim countries refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel. Some won't allow Israelis into their countries, some won't let non-Israelis into their country if they've got an Israeli stamp in their passport regardless of their nationality, and some both. But for sure this should be covered in the individual articles (and is in some, I've come across it) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

 * I just double-checked and the 3 countries that the article lists all cover the subject on the individual article pages, so totally redundant – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

 * don't delete - it is true, and yes it is listed in the articles that are touched by it. but i feel that a .. list over all the countries that don't accept israeli stamps/visas/passports are still good for the traveler that might be plotting his trip, may just pass by a country and has an israeli stamp in his passport ....

 * I've no real objection to deleting it, but would lean toward keep since it does no harm I can see. Or should it be merged into Middle East since it affects many people travelling in that region? Whatever we do with this article, the topic does not just need to be covered in the countries that block visitors, but in the Israel article as well. I checked; it is covered there. (WT-en) Pashley 08:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Make sure the topic is covered in Israel (because everyone this applies to will - by definition - be going there) and explained in the applicable other countries, then delete. Creating a separate article makes the information harder to notice, which is not Best For The Traveler. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

 * So what's the consensus here then? It seems clear to me that it's a non-article, but is anyone strongly disagreeing with that still? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I've just added it to Middle East. I added other stuff too; comment solicited. (WT-en) Pashley 22:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 01:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Brú na Bóinne Visitor Centre
Non article, per Project:What_is_an_article? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 19:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. I disagree; Brú Na Bóinne is an Archaeological Park containing over 40 sites (not quite a National Park - but close enough) and anyway clearly qualifies under the exceptions clause of the 'What is an article' policy as a 'Large archaeological site'. There has been and continues to be confusion about access to the principal archaeological sites, hence the entry.
 * The site itself may qualify as the subject of an article, but the visitor centre for it does not. Information about how to access the site should be part of an article about the site, not the other way around.   Our UNESCO World Heritage Sites page currently links to the article for Drogheda.  (By the way, our policy is to use the English names of places for all destinations, so I believe "Bend of the Boyne" would be a more appropriate article title, if we have one specifically for this site.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Setting aside the 'our English policy' remark, the original inscription on the UNESCO list was 'Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne'. The complex subsequently became an Archaeological Park (the Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park) and is known locally (i.e. the region), Nationally (i.e. by Government) and internationally (in most cases), simply as Brú Na Bóinne - and is almost always referred to as such. The vast majority of guide books, maps and related information published, refers to Brú Na Bóinne. Notwithstanding that fact, the article was written only yesterday and was due (and received) more attention today, and taking into account your first point, has been reshaped as the Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park - i.e. what it actually is and not what it was termed at the time the UNESCO application was made in 1992. Incidentally the main Wiki article for the UNESCO site is titled Brú Na Bóinne - not "Bend of the Boyne".
 * The name is tangential to the discussion at hand (for which I vote keep by the way), and should resume (for now) at Talk:Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep, with or without changing the name depending on discussion Todd points to. (WT-en) Pashley 21:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Drogheda - the nearest place with facilities. Drogheda is mentioned many times in the article and is where the site should be featured, in line with our policy of not having articles for individual attractions except in exceptional circumstances. -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep, in its redirected guise as Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park. There are similarities between this and a number of United States national monuments that have been discussed at length, for example Chimney Rock National Historic Site and Scotts Bluff National Monument.  In each case we have an article that probably doesn't have to exist, being tied to a town or other destination, but since someone went to the trouble of creating the article, might as well keep it.  See also the "Conventions" and "Conventions revisited" threads at Talk:United States National Parks for more of the reasoning that led to the retention of those other articles, also applicable to this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept and moved to Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Uploads by User:(WT-en) Mario brazil

 * Image:536px-Br-101.jpg - copied from
 * Image:230px-Br-101.jpg - same as above
 * Image:800px-Caruaru-Casa-museu-Mestre-Vitalino.jpg - copied from (GFDL)
 * Image:482px-Caruaru-figuras-de-barro.jpg - copied from (GFDL)
 * Image:Nova-Jerusalem-Pilatos.jpg - source and licence not specified
 * Image:NovaJerusalemMuralhas.jpg - as above

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 18:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Speedy delete -- (WT-en) Tim 19:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Speedy delete - we can (and should) do that for obvious copyvios, though the few that are just missing license/source we should probably wait out and see if he comes around to add it – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Apologies if this was not done in the correct way. I was trying to respect copyright rules.  That is why I used pictures from Wikipedia Commons for which there were notes with language similar to "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the yyyyy license".  I interpreted this as an authorization to used the pictures in other sites.  Apparently, my interpretation was wrong.  Please advise me on whether Wikimedia pictures with such information can be copied or not into Wikivoyage.  Thank you.  I would also appreciate it if you could let me know where I can learn more about using pictures in Wikivoyage.  User:(WT-en) Mario brazil 3 Apr 2007.
 * I would like to erase Image:230px-Br-101.jpg, but have not figured out how to delete pictures. User:(WT-en) Mario brazil 3 Apr 2007. 3:51am [EST]
 * By doing exactly what you did: call it to the community's attention and an admin will speedy-delete it, as I just did. You're doing the right thing here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Image:536px-Br-101.jpg was obtained from Wikipedia. I did not copy it from the website mentioned above.  I obtained all 6 pictures from Wikimedia Commons.  As I mentioned earlier, I was not aware this constituted a problem.  If it is inappropriate to use pictures from Wikimedia at Wikivoyage, I agree they should be erased.  If such pictures are authorized in some other way, let me know.  Thanks. User:(WT-en) Mario brazil 3 Apr 2007. 3:51am [EST]
 * See Project:Copyleft for information about what Wikimedia files can (and cannot) be incorporated into Wikivoyage. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

We need to get these resolved; they're many weeks overdue. As far as I can tell, Image:536px-Br-101.jpg is OK, being public domain according to Wikimedia Commons (I must admit that I suspect that declaration, but...). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Image:536px-Br-101.jpg kept; all others deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Scheduled Airlines of the World
A list of airlines (with some info about them), sorted by countries they serve. This kind of information belongs in the individual country articles, and creating a separate list of them just creates another page to maintain. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - I agree, this is redundant. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:02, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Gorodovikovsky district

 * Delete - too small, contains only one town. I don't think Kalmykia needs any subregions since it only has one city and a few towns that anyone might actually visit. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 23:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Kalmykia (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect. If it's a real place, but is covered in another article, a redirect is the best solution. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Still delete. This is a real place, but so obscure and small a place that no one would conceivably search for it. I believe that this district and the following are good examples of very minor politically bounded regions of no use to the traveler; if I understand the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Votes for deletion, I think they are just clutter. Moreover, I think it wise to discourage the creation of tiny Russian district pages (akin to US counties, but usually less populated) below the current hierarchical schematic — at least until there is much more content to spread about. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 00:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Err, saying a place is "of no use to the traveler" is saying a lot. There are different kinds of travellers including UN administrators and other NGO types, plus writers, academics, etc, who may have reasons to go somewhere that we can't even imagine. I think if there's a place to stay, then it's a destination. Otherwise it gets a subsection of the closest place to stay... (WT-en) Maj 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

 * The real question is, is there somebody now who is going to contribute this content. While Kalmykia is as big as half the states in the United States, and larger than most countries in Europe, it doesn't do any good to have stubs sitting around for years with nobody working on them. When somebody comes along who wants to turn this into an article, that's the time to make it an article. (WT-en) HLM 03:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I disagree: stubs are invitations to contribute that may get someone, who wouldn't start a new article, involved. It's not like we're going to run out of space ;-) and they are marked as outlines. (WT-en) Maj 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Actually, we had a resident of Kalmykia (I believe) doing some great work on the Kalmykia articles, but he/she unsurprisingly did not add anything to these district pages. I have yet to get to the region, but have studied it a great deal and would really like to see a great guide on wikivoyage for it. But I still think these districts should go—there is only one small town in each that anyone would conceivably visit, which can easily be covered by the main Kalmykia article and by individual articles for the towns of note. If we were writing an encyclopedia, I would certainly support Kalmyk district articles, but I think they are unhelpful for the traveller.  --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 09:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Kalmykia. No harm in it, although I doubt if many people will get to the main article via this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Kalmykia. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Lagansky district

 * Delete - too small, contains only one town. I don't think Kalmykia needs any subregions since it only has one city and a few towns that anyone might actually visit. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 23:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Kalmykia (WT-en) WindHorse 23:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Still delete as per above. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 00:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep if the person that created it is ready to start contributing and write something about this place, then let's have an article. Kalmykia is bigger than the lower Peninsula of Michigan. Doesn't a federal republic of that size (it is not highly populated but it is very geographically diverse) have some districts within it? (WT-en) HLM 02:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect as in previous case. Redirecting keeps the article name around, in case someone does eventually add content, and is therefore preferable to deleting. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:44, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Kalmykia. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Lecropt

 * Delete - a parish with no towns or villages and no place to stay, hence does not pass our "What is an article" test. Should be merged into Bridge of Allan. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Stirlingshire (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. We have room and it has some nice descriptions that would be useful for the traveler. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 12:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The only place mentioned is Lecropt Kirk. This could be covered in the "Get out" section of Bridge of Allan. If we start having articles for every church we will have loads of tiny articles. -- (WT-en) DanielC 12:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Bridge of Allan, after the content on Lecropt Kirk is merged in. One reason to keep things like this as redirects is to make it easier for people to find the root article, in case they actually do a search on the article title.  Daniel's right, though: no way is this one ever going to be an article on its own. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Bridge of Allan. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:06, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:DAUGAVPILS FOTOGRAFIJAS.jpg
Not a very useful image, and attempted license type doesn't apply here... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. User doesn't understand copyright - taken from somewhere. -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

L.A. Transportation Schedules

 * delete - too specific (WT-en) Jordanmills 15:55, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - Any info that will fit in here should rather go into the LA article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - This sort of information is better handled by primary sources. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Los Angles Schedules

 * delete - too specific (WT-en) Jordanmills 15:55, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - Any info that will fit in here should rather go into the LA article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - This sort of information is better handled by primary sources. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Tpi.jpg
Unusable small and uploaded by User:(WT-en) Lursus, who has copyvio'd left and right. (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - Unusable. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Hazel Grove
District article for Stockport, although neither article meets requirements for splitting into districts as described in Project:Geographical_hierarchy. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 17:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Stockport (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Stockport. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Sydney/Castlereagh Street
(WT-en) Inas 01:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - Is just a shopping street in Sydney. No information on the page is solely relevant to the region, rather to all shopping in Sydney CBD.  Does not meet Wikivoyage guidelines for an article.
 * Redirect to Sydney (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect, but to where? Shouldn't this go into a district of some kind instead?  BTW, the page wasn't flagged with a vfd banner (it is now), so let's give it another day or two before making decisions. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Sydney/City. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

8 May 2007
Apparently created in error with the summary: "Discover Hidden paradise on earth in the trip shape of Blossom tours & Autum tours" ~ 60.51.204.185 13:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Deleted. No reason for a vote on this one. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:28, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Sydney/Northern Suburbs
Redundant non-district, currently not linked to from anywhere except here ~ 210.187.13.150 11:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete - not name of place. Unlikely anyone will search for it. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Shevi waterfall

 * Delete - not an article, I have redirected to Waterfalls for now --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Or should it redirect to the closest destination?
 * Redirect to closest destination ~ 60.51.204.185 00:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
 * It is mentioned in the province article for Lorestan which says it is near Dezful, for which we have no article. I'd say redirect to Lorestan for now, change later if needed. (WT-en) Pashley 22:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Redirected to Lorestan --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Eden project

 * Delete - Not an article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to St Austell, subject to the outcome of Wikivoyage_talk:Votes_for_deletion - (WT-en) DanielC 08:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Redirected to St Austell --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Uxmal
An archeological site. ~ 219.94.80.130 04:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * See UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Uxmal is one of 830 in the world. UNESCO World Heritage sites are unique historical and cultural sites. Mexico has 25, and Uxmal is one of them. (WT-en) HLM 04:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * This is a fairly substantial site, and not near any large cities. I'd be surprised if there isn't some lodging available nearby (I know there is at Chichen Itza), though it might require going as far as the nearest towns (which probably aren't destinations in their own right).  I'm inclined to keep, rather than trying to find another place to cover it. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * According to the obvious Wikipedia article, "Two hotels and a small museum have been built within the remains of the ancient city." It's also a fair ways from Merida (70 km).  That makes this one a no-brainer: Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. (WT-en) Pashley 08:35, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Dzibilchaltún
An archaeological site. ~ 219.94.80.130 01:38, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * It is administered as the Parque Nacional de Dzibilchaltún, as the article says. Don't national parks in any country get articles. I would think that any state park in the United States, if it preserves a significant historical or cultural site, should have an article in a travel guide like this one, that can afford to be inclusive and have every noteworthy travel destination. (WT-en) HLM 02:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * The main test of whether a destination gets an article is can you sleep there?. I certainly don't know enough about the location to make such a call, but the article as it stands makes it seem as though you cannot.

 * Wikipedia places the site 10 miles from Mérida (Yucatan), making it a good See item for that destination.  If it proves too complex to fit in that article, it can be separated, but for now merge and redirect. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I quote from Project:What_is_an_article?:
 * "Large archaeological sites such as Angkor Wat or Ephesus
 * ...but not individual ruins in or near modern cities."
 * A problem is that "large" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Neither this article nor the WP one shed much light on just how "large" this place is, but according to this article (which btw lists it as "in" Merida despite a distance of 17 km), this park's area is about 540 hectares -- about 2 square miles for us metrically-impaired folks.  Most, though not all, United States national monuments of comparable size are not treated as destinations, but are attractions within the article for a nearby city or region.  So here; Redirect to Mérida (Yucatan).  There is ample room for discussion on this; I've tried to "seed" a discussion at Talk:United_States_National_Parks, in the absence of an overall "Mexican National Parks" article (which maybe should be written). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected as above. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Labna
An archaeological site. ~ 219.94.80.130 01:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Archeological sites are one of the major attractions of the Yucatan, which had a 3000 year record of pre-Columbian civilizations. Uxmal, only a few kilometers from Labna, is a Unesco World Heritage Site. 219.94.80.130, would you get yourself a login so that we can have some idea of who you are, what your interests are, what you like to edit, and so forth. How can we take you seriously here if you don't log in and use a recognizable name. I have better things to do with my time here than respond to Votes for Deletion. (WT-en) HLM 02:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I have seen a large quantity of very well-informed and helpful edits from this IP and am glad to have this contributor on board. Moreover, wikivoyage welcomes and encourages participation from anyone who shares the goals of this site, regardless of whether they sign in or not. What is relevant is not who votes for deletion, but rather whether the article in question meets the criterion for Project:What is an article?. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 09:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * This is a rather small site, probably best covered in conjunction with other sites in the area... maybe Uxmal? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Uxmal as a "Get out" for that article. Both the relevant Wikipedia article and the primary source quoted there suggest that this thing is most appropriately considered an add-on to the larger Uxmal site.  (BTW, I agree with Peterfitzgerald: opinions from anonymous editors count too.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Uxmal. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Duplicate images

 * Image:Lipariasplendens.JPG - Duplicate of Image:Lipariasplendens.jpg
 * Image:Ganbsaaiharbour.JPG - Duplicate of Image:Gansbaaiharbour.jpg
 * Image:Whale2.JPG - Duplicate of Image:Whale2.jpg
 * Image:Churchbaardskeerdersbos.JPG - Duplicate of Image:Churchbaardskeerdersbos.jpg
 * Image:Oystercatcher1.JPG - Duplicate of Image:Oystercatcher1.jpg
 * Image:Klipgat1.JPG - Duplicate of Image:Klipgat1.jpg
 * Image:Proteacompacta1.JPG = Duplicate of Image:Proteacompacta1.jpg

All of the above are duplicates. Probably worth a speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 12:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

LIONEL STREET IGA

 * Delete. Not an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) WindHorse 23:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:32, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Cupola.jpg, Image:StPetersCupola.jpg, Image:StPeterscupola.jpg

 * Delete. Three copies of the same image with no license info specified.  All of these images are currently unused in any article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:37, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Marsrutas.JPG

 * Delete. A scanned map with no license info specified, which makes it a potential copyvio.  This image is also unused in any article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 09:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

 * not delete This is only fragment of map with our route. This is used in page http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/User:Briedis of our this year coucasus expedition. This is taken from http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/8747/caucas.html#maps  MAp is more than 10 years old, and it is very small peace from all map. I very hesitete that somebody could say somethisg about it's copy lefts —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Briedis (talk • contribs) 9 May 2007
 * Have a look at Project:Copyleft. Content on Wikivoyage MUST be licensed under a CC-SA compatible license, which means the copyright holder (in this case, the person who created the map) must give his or her permission for use to use the image.  Without the permission the image has to be deleted, unfortunately. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete lacking copyright permission. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Latakia (governorate)
Governate (region) in Syria. It was suggested that Syria doesn't need regions yet, and when it gets to the stage that it does, using official political regions would be less useful for the traveller than Northern Syria, Southern Syria etc, for that policy see Project:Geographical_hierarchy. For original comments on Syrian regions see Talk:Syria -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 09:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Syria. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Syria, that way a search will still lead a user to the correct content --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Redirected to Syria

Samaria Gorge

 * Delete or Redirect. A small park, seems to be mainly done on a day trip. Project:What_is_an_article%3F states that we should have articles for large national parks, "...but not state or city parks that primarily serve as recreational sites for day visitors." - (WT-en) DanielC 14:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect AS stated above, the walk through the gorge can be completed in a day and there appears to be no accommodation or provision for camping.
 * Redirect to Agia Roumeli
 * Redirect. I've merged the basic info into Agia Roumeli. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:44, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Redirected to Agia Roumeli

Image:Horsetrails.JPG

 * Delete. Duplicate of image previously deleted Horsetrails.jpg. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 00:12, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - can't we speedy delete in this type of situation? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted

Lev

 * Delete. An article about the bulgarian currency. -- (WT-en) DanielC 12:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - speedy candidate, me thinks – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:01, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Airport shuttle

 * Delete. An advert. -- (WT-en) DanielC 12:41, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * What about a redirect to somewhere like Fundamentals of flying? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 17:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:01, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Elblag poland.JPG

 * Delete. Image taken from & licensed under GFDL.
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Jawor poland.jpg

 * Delete. Image taken from & licensed under GFDL.
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Zamosc Poland europe.JPG

 * Delete. Incompatible license, see
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Poznan poland.JPG

 * Delete. Easily recognized people. Also not sure what license it is (was taken from ).  If it's a compatible license, it could be cropped.
 * Delete. I've done some snazzy wizardy with Photoshop to get around the recognizable-people problem, but I don't see how we could crop or otherwise fix this without losing the point of the photo, or being really obvious about it. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Someone remind me in October/November to go to Poznan and I'll take some photos, I just hope I don't get too drunk at the Wyborowa distillery. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:20, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:La Fidula 09marzo07 03.jpg
A poster, almost certainly a copyvio. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:IMG 8531 Yarmouth morning.jpg

 * Delete. Licensed under GFDL, per this page. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 16:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

NIEDERRIED/Brienz lake ZIP 3283 Niederried
Created with the content "Transport by Taxi or Minibus for the huge Indian Fanilies www.mysterytours.net -also airport transfer and city tours Tel. 076 321 3800 int. 0041 76 321 3800" ~ 60.51.204.185 14:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Speedy delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:26, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Wolo Highlands
Not sure if this should be redirected or deleted, so I've redirected it for now and I'm mentioning it here also. ~ 60.51.204.185 13:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep as a redirect. It would likely be a useful subregion article when the Ethiopia hierarchy gets developed. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Redirected --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The forest way

 *  Delete? Change to itinerary - Not sure what to make of this one. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep but recategorize - inter-town walks and cycling paths in the UK are a big travel topic in and of themselves—head to the travel section of an English bookstore and you'll see book after book on this topic. I think this sort of article should be encouraged as a regional itinerary and perhaps eventually listed under a travel topic. Living in London last summer, I was looking for precisely this sort of information, but did not find any good online, free sources. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 09:24, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * That was what I was thinking. This is useful information, but does not currently fit any type of article. Maybe a travel topic Walks and cycle paths in the UK or something similar is needed. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep and add itinerary template. This is a 10 mile walk between two towns - which more than makes a case for turning this into an itinerary under the rule "Itineraries should be an intersection of time or activity and destination" on Project:Itinerary article template... No matter how empty it is now, there's got to be a few things to do along the way/things to looks at/places to get food/get a pint so there will be info to fleece out the itinerary template! Have a look at Project:List of itineraries for a whole bunch of similar articles. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 11:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Works for me --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I am the Author and a local; I know the path is actually a tourist attraction and a local ammeniety, and the Uk is well kitted out with cyclepaths, some of them (such as the nearby Cuckoo Trail) are fully fledged attractions in thier own right. a nice, peaceful cycle in some lovely countryside may well appeal to families or people could enjoy the walks. I'm also all for a UK cyclepath page - shall i contact sustrans? the UK cyclepath making people? thanks jack User:(WT-en) Profjack
 * Keep as itinerary. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm not convinced that a one-day hiking/cycling path constitutes an "Itinerary." However, it's definitely valuable information that should be retained somewhere.  To me it looks like a perfect candidate for Project:Cooperating with WikiOutdoors.  Jack, would it be possible for you to move this content over to a WikiOutdoors article?  That article could then be referenced by the towns at either end -- meeting the goals of both projects.  (Incidentally, absolutely the finest vacation I've ever had was spent cycling on paths like this in Scotland.  It's great to know about more such options, I'm just not convinced they qualify as Itineraries.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. I'd say it is obviously not a destination or travel topic. Looks to me like it could work as an itinerary. If not, we need to start discussion to either redefine itineraries or start a new category to put it and other such articles in. (WT-en) Pashley 01:10, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Outcome - Kept as itinerary. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:28, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Horseback riding costa rica

 * Could be an itinerary (with the caps fixed), but right now only has one url... could also be a redirect. (WT-en) Maj 11:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I like the idea of turning this into an itinerary, but it might have to be a bit more specific than horseback riding in Costa Rica... Unless there's a route that people could ride on... -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 12:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. Try to work as itinerary. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. There are literally millions of topics that could be a valid travel itinerary, and in the absence of a "what is an article" criteria for travel topics it sets a bad precedent to keep empty articles that might one day become a valid topic - keeping this article opens us up to any number of empty "activity in place" articles, which isn't in the traveler's best interest.  The current article contains only a single link - if someone wants to flesh out an itinerary about horseback riding in Costa Rica they can always recreate this article later, but the current "article" should be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete - agree with Ryan – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:32, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Museum in goiania
per Project:What is an article? ~ 60.48.6.50 12:27, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * '''Redirect to Goiania -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Outcome - Redirected --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:35, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Cartina ischia big.jpg
Although the web site this originally came from appears to be operated by the person who uploaded it, it seems likely that the image itself was derived from a copyrighted map, making it a copyvio Furthermore the style of the map (and Italian text) make it less-than-useful for our purposes; an original map would be better. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - not really useful, as above – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:37, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Hyd biryani.jpg
Has been copyvio for too long. — 202.63.119.165 06:34, 13 May 2007 (EDT) (Ravikiran)

 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 04:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:26, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Pl-wro-logo.png

 * Delete - has nothing to do with visiting the place, and makes the article look more like a Wikipedia article than a travel guide. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 04:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:26, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Image:Pl-wro-coat.jpg

 * Delete - has nothing to do with visiting the place, and makes the article look more like a Wikipedia article than a travel guide. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 04:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:26, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Carnival Conquest
Article about a cruise ship. Does not meet Project:What is an article?. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Hmmmm. Just found this: Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article%3F -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, input on the more general question - and hopefully a consensus - is needed. This question has come up before and was never really resolved, and it's coming up again. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Carnival freedom
Ibid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. Cruises are a popular form of travel and this provides an unbiased opinion of one cruise ship 216.99.2.9 15:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * The question is whether that's enough to be the topic of an entire article. We don't have separate articles of that sort for hotels, for example.  Please join the discussion linked to above. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Carnival Elation
Ditto. ~ 219.94.80.130 02:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome for the above three: Kept for now; discussion also archived at Talk:Cruise ships. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:36, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Carbon offsetting
Not a travel topic. Stock spam text. (WT-en) Jordanmills 12:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Carbon offsets actually come up occasionally in discussions about travel, so how about redirecting to Ecotourism? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Agree - redirect to Ecotourism -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 13:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Guess it is a travel topic. Redirect seems reasonable to me then. Not sure how to do that with the VFD message on there, or if it's okay to take it down now that I've posted it here.  I'm sure someone can work it out though. (WT-en) Jordanmills 13:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 23:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Ecotourism – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Ecotourism. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:46, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
Similar to a body of water, which we don't do articles on usually. Dive sites should be called up in their nearest destination. We do however have an article on the Great Barrier Reef. -- (WT-en) DanielC 06:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. It should be classified as an itinerary, because there are dozens of sites where one can visit and study the reef. There are also several museums in local places near the reef that offer materials, and these could be listed in the itinerary. It is actually a natural feature (not a body of water) comparable in some ways to the Grand Canyon, because it is 700 km long, however most people don't know about it because it is entirely underwater. Also, because it spans the Carribean coastline of four different countries, it doesn't have that much of an international identity (except to marine biologists). It is the largest coral reef system in the western hemisphere, the second largest in the world. You can't really say "dive site" because it is actually the destination for divers in four different countries (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras), spread over hundreds of kilometers. "Mesoamerican Barrier Reef" (in quotes) brings up more than 18K Google links. (WT-en) HLM 07:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * We have an article for the Great Barrier Reef because it's a region of Queensland, Australia consisting of several islands, and a part of our geographical hierarchy. It easily passes the "can you sleep there?" test. It's not there to describe the reef itself, which is beyond the scope of it. The fact that the Mesoamerican reef is so large is actually an argument against trying to put it into a single article. People are most likely to visit just a part of the reef, using one or two of the nearby countries as a base, and those dive sites can and should be covered in the articles for those countries. I'm not opposed in principle to having an itinerary-type article describing the route one might take from one end of the reef to the other (if people actually might do that), but it should be crafted as an itinerary, linking to the destination articles that cover the coastline along the way for info about accommodations, restaurants, etc. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * You can sleep there too! Honduras in particular has three large islands on the reef, which are famed among backpackers who want to dive for cheap. Honduras is the poorest country in Central American, and often the cheapest. This reef system has another common name, the Belize Barrier Reef. It is recognized as a Unesco World Heritage Site. The scientific name Mesoamerican Barrier Reef reflects an understanding that the name Belize Barrier Reef isn't really accurate. Maybe Mesoamerican Barrier Reef should redirect to Belize Barrier Reef. But I can't believe that wikivoyage deletes the names of Unesco World Heritage Sites while promoting names like Mayan Riviera, basically a travel agency invention. Furthermore, if you were describe the geographical features of Central America (coastal plain, cordillera, highland plateaus, etc.) then this would obviously be one of them. (WT-en) HLM 02:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * (I'd actually describe it as a feature of the Carribean Sea, it being in the ocean, after all. But them, this isn't a geography guide, so the question is fairly pointless.)  The Great Barrier Reef article is an article about the above-water land in that area, not for the reef under the water.  Similarly, we have articles for the Bay Islands because that is a region of another land-dwelling country.  Wikivoyage has a distinct air-breathing bias, I'm afraid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep, but move to Belize barrier reef since that's what Unesco calls it. We want the most common name; scientific precision is not particularly important. Scuba gear or snorkels allow this to be a travel destination for air-breathers. Link to it from Scuba diving. (WT-en) Pashley 22:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep Important for the traveler and several places to visit. We should keep as a regional article. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

 * So what is it a region of? If it's a region of the Caribbean, does that mean we pull any coastal islands of Honudras-thru-Mexico out of those countries and put them in here?  If not, then what is in it, besides water?  The only other body-of-water regions we have were created for the sake of islands that had no other region to go in; there are no such orphaned islands in this one.  Or, if it's not a region article, what is it?  An intinerary... from where to where... and on what transportation?  These aren't rhetorical questions; the topic is neither fish nor fowl, and I really don't see how to develop this Wikipedia stub into something that fits Project:What is an article?, or what purpose it will serve. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Why does it have to be a region of anything? The purpose is to describe an area people (especially divers) might travel to. As I see it, if such description doesn't fit policy, it is the policy (or your interpretation) that is wrong.

 * If this region overlaps others, I see no problem. Other areas are on borders; is Lake Tahoe in California? Or borders are somewhat arbitrary; do you include Turkey and Egypt in Middle East? Or southern France in Mediterranean Europe? The geographical hierarchy is helpful both for navigation and for categorisation when you're writing, but it can never be perfect, it isn't scared, and it needn't be a major factor in choosing which areas rate a description. (WT-en) Pashley 09:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep - I see no reason to delete this. It's a place tourists might like to visit so it deserves to be here. (WT-en) Xania 08:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
 * It appears that the consensus is to keep this, and we're long overdue to resolve it. (FWIW, keep is my own vote too.)  Any new arguments for other actions?  If not, I'll do the bookkeeping shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:42, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2007