text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2006

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

Waterfall
- an empty page with just the title Waterfall (WT-en) WindHorse 11:29, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
 *  Delete Redirect. (WT-en) OldPine 16:43, 18 October 2006 (EDT) Changed vote. (WT-en) OldPine 10:46, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Could I sell you a redirect to Waterfalls? I've redirect it in the meantime, but go ahead and delete if this vote passes. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:46, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Yeah, redirect to Waterfalls is fine. I just never thought of it. (WT-en) WindHorse 20:08, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. is good. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:24, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

Image:Gz_district_map_small.png

 * My mistake. I uploaded the image only to English Wikivoyage. I have now uploaded Image:Guangzhou_district_map.png into Wikivoyage Shared now, so this can be deleted. (WT-en) Trsqr 00:52, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

Image:Gz_district_map.svg

 * My mistake. I uploaded the image only to English Wikivoyage. I have now uploaded Image:Guangzhou_district_map.svg into Wikivoyage Shared now, so this can be deleted. (WT-en) Trsqr 00:52, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

Tour operators
Page has no info, not linked from or to anything.--(WT-en) justfred 12:59, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

Www.brandbergrestcamp.com
The contend should be moved to the correct destination page, but I think this is a case where we dont want a redirect. I'd hate to see redirects croppin' up for every hotel and/or website out there... slippery slope imho. (WT-en) Maj 11:54, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)
 * Agreed. I'll do it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:10, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Baylor
sleep?

 * Delete. There's a Baylor County in Texas, but I think it's more likely that we'd use that name. There's also a Baylor, Montana, according to the Getty Thesaurus, and I can find it on geonames.org, but I can't really find it with any other tools. Geonames comes up with a post office (historical) and a school (historical) close to the dot for the town, but as far as I can tell there's just a field there now. At best this could be a disambiguation; otherwise I say drop it. --12:26, 25 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. To Waco, where the University is located. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:24, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Waco. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. I've changed my mind about three times on this one, but what harm can a redirect do? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:22, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Jerusalem/Chareidi

 * Not an officially recognised district of the city, but rather one drawn by the original contributor, presumably on religious and cultural grounds. Recommend deletion and transfer of content into appropriate official districts. Much of the content belongs within a relevant "Understand" section. (WT-en) Paul James Cowie 16:56, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
 * It doesn't need to be officially recognised to be useful to travellers. I don't know Jerusalem. Is this more useful than official names? (WT-en) Pashley 19:23, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
 * The name "Mea Shearim" is overwhelmingly more common for the area.  That said, it's not really a destination in the Wikivoyage sense, because the Haredi (the more common spelling of "Chareidi") locals are not keen at all on tourists traipsing around and there are no places to stay. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:40, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
 * How about redirecting to Jerusalem, and then this conversation can continue on Talk:Jerusalem/Chareidi. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)
 * Sounds good. This appears to be more of a question where to redirect than whether to delete or not... (WT-en) Maj 12:47, 5 November 2006 (EST)

Image:IMG 0111.JPG

 * Delete. It's documented as being copied from a site which does not give permission to copy.  Also it's a picture of people without a release per Project:Image policy. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:01, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete - Blatant copyright violations would be grounds for speedy deletion. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * This one is such a clear copyvio that I felt obliged to speedy-delete it. We can't allow that kind of thing. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:15, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Template:National Park India

 * Delete. A navigational menu for national parks in India, which is not something we normally use templates for per Project:Using Mediawiki templates.  I'm in favor of keeping the template policy as-is, but there have been a few of these sorts of templates created lately, so others may have differing opinions. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:14, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

Template:Bay Beaches

 * Delete. Same as above. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:17, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

Image:DSCF0211.JPG

 * Delete - I tried to crop this one but I find it hard to keep it useful without violating privacy rights. - (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 22:47, 1 November 2006 (EST)
 * Well, I could probably Photoshop it into a useful form but I'm not entirely sure what it is and whether it could be used in an article even without privacy issues. Is it worth the effort? --(WT-en) Paul. 14:01, 2 November 2006 (EST)
 * I suppose blurring the faces or something like that would solve the privacy issue. I'm trying to check if we can just re-upload the fixed image or if it needs to be saved with a different name before it's uploaded again. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 10:04, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * I'm replacing it by a trimmed and face-blurred version so this one can really go now. I keep my delete vote. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:26, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * If anyone wants to use it I've uploaded a photoshopped version here --(WT-en) Paul. 16:16, 3 November 2006 (EST)

 * Delete. Ricardo's version addresses the privacy issues, and this one isn't needed now. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:59, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Klumpor

 * No joy with Getty, Google, Wikipedia or Yahoo, and too far off the mark to redirect to Kuala Lumpur ~ 203.144.143.10 11:05, 2 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete - I don't think this is a common enough misspelling that a redirect is needed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Kulmpur

 * No joy with Getty, Google, Wikipedia or Yahoo, and too far off the mark to redirect to Kuala Lumpur ~ 203.144.143.10 11:05, 2 November 2006 (EST)
 * As a tragically bad speller, I'm wondering if there isn't a benefit to having fat-finger redirects. I mean, it's not like they take up space or clutter the card catalog or something... maybe a topic for a Project:Redirect guidelines discussion? (WT-en) Maj 12:34, 5 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Re:Maj - I'm all in favour of redirects to common mispellings found on the web or in literature. I wouldn't oppose "fat-finger" redirects also but I think they might give us a hard time to tell from bogus articles.
 * Delete - I don't think this is a common enough misspelling that a redirect is needed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Putra Brasmana Hotel

 * Delete - hotels don't get individual articles. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 13:32, 2 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. 12:48, 5 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Terence Ong 00:31, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Template:Banned
We've been fortunate enough not to ban any users from editing Wikivoyage so there's no need for this template. The very very few times the block feature has been implemented is for scripts that haven't gone through the proper channels to operate on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:24, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Wikivoyage prides itself on inclusiveness, so let's avoid things like templates for banned users. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:36, 5 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Terence Ong 00:30, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Category:User uk
Looks like somebody didn't know how to use the Category function, or what it's good for. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:36, 5 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete - this "category" does not help any of our goals. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Image:Atlanta Districts1.jpg
Incorporates copyrighted Google maps. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 18:34, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Image:Atlanta Districts2.jpg
Incorporates copyrighted Google maps. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 18:34, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Kerava
Sleeper suburb of Helsinki, no attractions and no places to sleep. Not sure where, if anywhere, it can be redirected though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:50, 7 November 2006 (EST) Outcome: kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 21 November 2006 (EST)
 * Unsure about this one but I'd feel inclined to keep it. Even by just letting travellers know that Kerava is just a sleeper suburb with no places to sleep, the article could be useful to someone - say, people who travel for family reasons or something and have to move around there or whatever. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. Seems to me that if there's room for Congress, there's room for this one.  Check out Talk:Congress for an airing of the issues, including ways to handle the absence of places to sleep -- remember that the "can-you-sleep-there" criterion is more about the kind of place than about whether it has actual hotels.  In this particular case, the difficulty that Jani mentions, about finding a redirect, argues for keeping it.  (Just how big is this place?) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:12, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * I took a second look and would now myself vote to keep -- I'd always figured it was a district of something else, but no, it's actually incorporated as a city and has a population of 30,000. There are still almost no sights, but hey, at least they have the Garlic Festival(tm) every August, a festival so well known that I lived ~25 km away for ten years and never heard about it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:56, 13 November 2006 (EST)

Image:Sunrise_puncak.jpg
Clueless, pointless and violated privacy rights. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:59, 7 November 2006 (EST) Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:46, 21 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete if it's not been added to the user's page by the end of the voting period. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * Agree with Ricardo. The text accompanying the photo probably makes this courtesy unnecessary, but it can't hurt to be polite ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:25, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete unless it shows up on a user page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

العاب
I don't think it's a place name, and suspect it's probably not a candidate for a redirect. ~ 61.91.191.4 17:48, 22 November 2006 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 17:58, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Image:Class Of 02Sep2006.jpg
Violates privacy rights and doesn't really serve much purpose. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:17, 9 November 2006 (EST) Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:42, 23 November 2006 (EST)
 * Certainly not appropriate to illustrate an article, but let's give it its full two weeks before deleting, in case it shows up on a user page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:01, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete unless it shows up on a user page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Ekeralla

 * Speedy Delete. I would say speedy for this one. Appears to be a mistake by a user wanting to create their user page. The users page User:(WT-en) Ekeralla has the same information.

Outcome: speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:03, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Tiger Leaping Gorge
An attraction rather than a destination. I have copied the text here to the nearest town, Lijiang, which was the only page linking to this. (WT-en) Pashley 09:59, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Is there any chance that this thing could be a multi-day trek, with overnight stays along the way, and therefore possibly defensible as an itinerary? I'm not familiar with it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:08, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Leaping_Gorge says its only 15 km long. However, according to another site http://www.passplanet.com/china/sw/tiger_lg.htm there are guesthouses on the route. Perhaps it could become an itinerary, but I'd say delete unless someone wants to do that work. (WT-en) Pashley 19:24, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to Lijiang. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: redirected to Lijiang. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:08, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Image:Cba.jpg
Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 16:56, 11 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. The image size & border suggests that this image came from another web site, so delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:20, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Image:Sergio.jpg
Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 16:56, 11 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. The image size suggests that this image came from another web site, so delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:20, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Image:Highland map.png

 * Requesting speedy delete as I uploaded this myself accidentally (I meant to upload to shared). --(WT-en) Paul. 17:07, 26 November 2006 (EST)
 * Deleted per uploader request. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:57, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Bionicle & Bionicle.com

 * Delete. Clearly these don't meet Project:What is an article?, and I would have speedy deleted them but I'm not at all sure what they are, so listing them here in case the author actually meant them as something useful for travelers. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:11, 28 November 2006 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted by me -- it's a line of toys from Lego involving a SciFi storyline. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:37, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Image:1guatemap.jpeg
Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 23:49, 12 November 2006 (EST) Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:54, 28 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Gio30
Username, not a destination name. ~ 61.91.191.10 03:35, 19 November 2006 (EST)

 * Speedy Delete Appears to be an attempt by a user to post on their talk page. Speedy delete would be my suggestion. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:35, 24 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:55, 28 November 2006 (EST)
 * Outcome: Deleted.

Image:Parliament street.jpg
Currently the image only licensed under the non commercial CC-by-SA 2.0 license. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 23:32, 12 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete unless image is re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)
 * Outcome: Deleted.

Image:IMG_1937.jpg
Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 23:49, 12 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:55, 28 November 2006 (EST)
 * Outcome: Deleted.

Image:Guatemala.jpg
Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 03:28, 13 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:55, 28 November 2006 (EST)
 * Outcome: Deleted.

Image:Jak.jpg
Gorgeous pic, but you can't take it unless you get permission to climb on the Mandarin Oriental's roof and are armed with a good camera and a better tripod. I'm pretty sure this doesn't describe the anonymous uploader. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:52, 13 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Jani's comments suggest this may have come from another web site, so delete unless source is provided indicating it is CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:55, 28 November 2006 (EST)
 * Outcome: Deleted.

Image:DSNC1115.jpg
Pointless and author and source not specified. --24.42.112.190 18:09, 13 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Violates privacy rights - Project:Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan 07:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:55, 28 November 2006 (EST)
 * Outcome: Deleted.

Image:West Country map.png

 * Gah, I did it again. Uploaded here when I meant to upload to shared. Speedy delete requested. --(WT-en) Paul. 18:52, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Outcome: Deleted at uploaders request.

Image:Michoacan-playa.jpg
Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 13:04, 15 November 2006 (EST) Outcome: deleted. (Link appeared to be busted, anyway.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:12, 30 November 2006 (EST)


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2007

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

Xel-Ha
This is actually a commercial water theme park, one of several in the area, and you can't stay there-- no accommodations. The park is only open until 5:30 or 6 PM depending on the time of year, and the article originated most likely from a park employee, with many copyright violations including copyrighted photos from the company's site and very sales-y language. A similar article was created around the same time on es: and has long since been deleted.
 * Delete - The theme park already has mentions in 4 other nearby destinations' articles.(WT-en) Texugo 04:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete' - Agree. Should have coverage from elsewhere. (WT-en) OldPine 09:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep I have been there, it is like a Mexican version of Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve near Honolulu (been there too). It is a ecological theme park. It has been a few years since I was there, but I think you can sleep there, or at least camp very near by. I would suggest to anyone in that area, especially if you have children, visit. It is on the road to Tulum, from Cancun and heavily traveled by tourists. (WT-en) 2old 10:32, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Their website suggests no on-site accommodations and the park is within taxi distance from both Cancun and Tulum, which to me makes it a non-article. The only commercial theme park articles we have so far are Disney resorts, which are huge theme park complexes with accommodations. I don't believe this park measures up. The activities on offer there can easily be summed up in a brief paragraph on the Cancun page. The rest of it is just commercial nonsense, i.e. "Xel-ha is a theme park created by Mayan gods, bla bla bla". (WT-en) Texugo 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I thought about this last night. I agree that it is a non-article. My first thought was don't delete this. It should be merged with Mayan Riviera or Riviera Maya which both exist on Wikivoyage and are the same place. And, those should be merged. So, my vote is changed to Merge and redirect if approptiate. By the way, the area was created by the Mayan Gods, it is where they vacationed. If you visit, you will understand why. (WT-en) 2old 09:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
 * That sounds right to me. Merge and redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 20:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep as a redirect ~ 203.189.134.3 07:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I have moved all that I think is appropriate to Mayan Riviera, Riviera Maya can be deleted and redirected, if you like. (WT-en) 2old 12:18, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Xel-Ha and Riviera Maya Redirected to Mayan Riviera --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:34, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Tivat
Pasted text from Wikipedia.
 * Delete (WT-en) LukeWestwalker ⇔ 14:10, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Kept after blanking... if it's a valid place, just remove the copyvio text and leave it as an outline, no need to delete :)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 13:05, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Right. (WT-en) LukeWestwalker ⇔ 18:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep - the Wikipedia article says it's a town with a population of 9000+ ~ 203.189.134.3 07:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept after WP content was replaced by blank template --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:38, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Pinballstaff.jpg
Not sure if this can be speedy-deleted or not. It clearly shows people and so is in violation of the image policy I believe. Is there a way to use this picture--how does one go about submitting model releases, or do we even get into that? -- (WT-en) OldPine 10:02, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Speedy Delete. This thing about people in photo's is making me goofy. When I first started contributing to Wikivoyage, people in photo's was pretty much taboo. If we have a clear policy on this, I can not find it. If we have a clear/black and white policy, it may do away with one issue that continues to be an issue for conflict within the community and gets us nowhere. I suggest we adopt a policy like:Photo's that contain recognizable images of people are not acceptable for Wikivoyage/Wikishared and will be deleted. The only exception would be on a Contributor page, where a photo/photo's of the contributor is permissable. Forget the model release. The only problem it would create for me is that most of my photo's prior to Wikiworld contain people. I also have some great photo's, that I think would be great for Wikivoyage, and I have submitted some that are borderline, but I think it is time to end this conflict, everyone wants to push the line just a bit further. (WT-en) 2old 12:22, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. I wouldn't speedy something like this, if there's any doubt then let it go through the vfd process. It also give the user a chance to see it here and understand why. In which case they might want to just put it on their userpage. If they haven't added it to a userpage by the time the 14 days is up, then I say we go ahead and delete it. 2old, I know your struggling with the image policy at the moment, but it really isn't all that unclear... if a person/persons are the main subject in a photo, then it's not ok. If they are tiny and in the background and not the focus of the picture, then it can probably slide. Like many other things in life, we have to use our judgement. Slapping a hardcore rule on WT forbidding any persons in any photo from any angle even in shadow and from behind doesn't do us any good... if there's doubt about a photo, vfd it and see what the community has to say. 99% of the photos uploaded here are fine... and occasionally we have to discuss the other 1%, that's inevitable.. we can't make crazy rules just to avoid having to have discussions :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:13, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, I had not thought about forbidding any persons in any photo from any angle even in shadow and from behind, just recognizable. And if you read, just a few VFD's up, you will see disagreement between some rather seasoned contributors on this subject. I did not just invent this idea, it was the policy when I first started submitting photo's. At that time I thought it to be a bit restrictive, but adapted to it (sorta). Anyway, It will not make or break my day either way. I thought it time to make it clear, as it seemed to be in the past. If the present policy continues, it will open the door for some of my questionable photo's, and then we can discuss them here. No problemo. (WT-en) 2old 10:44, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:52, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Inti wara yassi
"Inti Wara Yassi is volunteer non-profit organization from Bolivia" ~ 203.189.134.3 10:27, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Kothagudem
Wanted to develop it, but it turned out there is hardly anything attractive. (WT-en) LukeWestwalker ⇔ 11:53, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

 * If it is a real place (as World66 thinks, according to link above) and conceivable (even if unlikely) destination for a traveller (not only for a tourist, but including people who might have work there), then keep. Throw in a template, leave it as a stub and perhaps someone will fill it in. Lack of interesting sights is not a reason for deletion. It may be a reason to ignore it, leave it as a stub, but that's a different thing (WT-en) Pashley 23:07, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep - (WT-en) OldPine 23:31, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. This seems clear. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:20, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:59, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Dive map.gif
Seeming copyvio from http://www.kohtaoeasydivers.com/kt_sd_dive.htm (press 'Skip Intro' and it's then presented as part of the flash animation). The image was used as part of a link to that exact site from Ko Tao (see an old revision), so it could be the shop itself, but it could also be a an overly helpful editor. There's nothing on the image page to explain and the editor has only been here for that one image. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:27, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Whalesofdonsol.jpg

 * Delete. Copyvio from tourism website, and has annoying text on the image. Cool image though. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:15, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Virgen de la Paloma
Conflicts with Project:What is an article? ~ 203.189.134.3 04:56, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:IMGP0044.JPG + Image:IMGP0045.JPG + Image:KC1.JPG + Image:Klub-Caterva1a.jpg + Image:Klub-Caterva1ad.jpg
Advertisements. ~ 203.189.134.3 05:43, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:20, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Avatele
No such place that I can find, previous content was graffiti. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. -- 24.147.175.14 14:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep - Wikipedia doesn't have an article for it, but confirms that Avatele is a village of 150 people in the southwest part the island of Niue. (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:25, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:KFLAG.png and Image:KarshkavinianFlag.png
Upload says they are flags from Karshkavinia. Couldn't find where such a place exists. -- 24.147.175.14 14:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:28, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:The Sana Beach.jpg

 * Delete. We generally frown upon images of businesses, and this is just a pic of the interior of a cafe. Also it's licensed as PD-old, which seems unlikely... it's in color, for one ;)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 00:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:40, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:IMGP00412.jpg Image:Klub-Caterva2.JPG Image:IMGP00412.psd
Advertisements / .psd ~ 203.189.134.3 03:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Air transport
Topic is too general, material is already covered in other articles, text was copyvio of http://english(dot)china(dot)com. (blocked by spam filter) It could be redirected to either Fundamentals of flying or Tips for flying, but seeing as how Air travel doesn't even exist as a redirect, I don't see why the less-common term Air transport should exist.
 * Delete(WT-en) Texugo 21:57, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Images by User:(WT-en) Catchuec
Image:Colva 2.JPG, Image:Calangute 2.JPG, Image:Vagator.JPG, and Image:Calangute 1.JPG are all violations of our privacy policy and should be deleted. They also lack licensing info, but I presume that they were taken by the uploader. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:12, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. While legally these photos are OK since they don't meet the legal definition for recognizability (no one is clearly identifiable), they don't meet the guideline of avoiding pictures of people. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Unsure Based on this excerpt from image policy However, in public spaces people give up a certain degree of privacy, which means that they can be photographed (and cannot stop the process). At Wikivoyage, this is generally interpreted conservatively to mean that identifiable people in a picture should be peripheral to the picture content. For example, you can upload a picture of a crowded market or plaza, as long as you could take out or substitute any given person in it without materially affecting the picture. If the license is ok. (WT-en) 2old 16:30, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. nobody is really recognizable, and people should have an idea of what to expect at these beaches... an early morning shot of an empty beach would be a little misleading – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:13, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep (except maybe the last). They're all pictures of public beaches with random people in the background, none of whom are particularly recognizable or important, so the privacy policy doesn't apply.  And particularly in India it'd be quite misleading to present a beach as beind devoid of people...! (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:01, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Conflicting policy. I pasted the policy for images above, then read the privacy policy if an image contains a subject that is identifiable, a model release is needed. These two policies seem to conflict. I have to plead guilty of posting an image with people in it, I also have to plead insanity for waiting 20 minutes or more to shoot subjects without people in them. I can remember earlier discusions when sillouetes of people were deleted and anything that had people in it was gone, gone, gone. I have no problem contibuting a photo with people in it and assuming the liability. However, if I am not in compliance with WT policy, that means something different and I like all contributors need to comply. As I remember (WT-en) Evan was one who was not in favor of people or sillouetes. I would appreciate his seasoned views on this. (WT-en) 2old 14:19, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't see it as conflicting statements, it isn't a black and white issue, and it's hard to reduce it to one... I think it's just giving you a general idea of the law and how WT conservatively interprets it... personally i think as long as a person isn't the main focus of the picture then you are fine, in my opinion – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 18:24, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * My beef with these images, regardless of privacy concerns, is that there are tourists in the foreground, despite the fact that they are not the subject of the image. People in the background of a photo of a crowded beach are appropriate, but the foreground (and recognizable) tourists make the images seem unprofessional for use in a travel guide. For what it's worth, the uploader has already voiced a desire to take and reupload photos of the same beaches which will be fully in compliance with our "people in images" policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:25, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted as per our guilty until proven innocent policy. This vfd has been around longer than it deserves and I'm sure we can get better photos of those places. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 00:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Coralgrand.jpg
No sign of a model release. It also probably fufills the other argument for not having photos of people on Wikivoyage: it's just not a very interesting illustration of travel (it was used on Ko Tao, but ascents/descents look like that on pretty much every decent visiblity dive). (WT-en) Hypatia 02:16, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete - due to lack of license more than anything else --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:50, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Dumb dumb diver.jpg
More borderline on model release (not sure the person is identifiable), but they're still the primary focus of the picture. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete - due to lack of license more than anything else --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:57, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Golden Spike National Historic Site
More a single site or monument than a park, I think. Does not appear to have any accommodation options. Previous text was copyvio wikipedia.
 * Delete - This site can adequately be covered in the region article or nearest city article.(WT-en) Texugo 00:07, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Utah. I've gone ahead and done the redirect, but will leave this vfd here for a bit longer in case anyone disagree. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect. It would be good to keep the redirect page, for the sake of those who've heard of the NHS and want to visit it, but don't know what town to use as a base of operations.  The answer, btw, is Brigham City, which is not hopelessly small -- population over 15,000 -- and certainly qualifies as a destination.  The redirect should be amended to point to this article iff it gets created. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:13, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Utah (for now). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Hannah Boat Landing, Pemaquid Beach and Pemaquid Point Lighthouse
Beaches, lighthouses, and boat landings don't get their own articles. I moved the info to the Bristol (Maine) article.
 * Delete - See Project:What is an article? (WT-en) Texugo 01:36, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 04:54, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: All deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Template:User current age

 * Delete. It's been around for several months, no pages link to it, and it appears to be directly copied in from Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:05, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Thesse things are a lot more trouble on Wikipedia than they're worth, I'd suggest delete'ing this. (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:01, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:12, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:05, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Gedung sate 1950.jpg

 * Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:08, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Image:YarmarkaPostcard.jpg

 * Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:14, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Plaza Italia.jpg

 * Delete. Licensed as pd-old, but doesn't look it... also looks like a helicopter shot... I seriously question its pd-ness without a source given – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:16, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Recife bom jesus.jpg

 * Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Image:290px-Zdf.jpg & Image:180px-StGeorgeinterior.jpg

 * Delete. Licensed as pd-old, but looks unlikely... is also too small to be useful here, and almost looks as if it they were taken from a tourism website – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:25, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Blasewitz-dresden.jpg

 * Delete. Too old, and nothing links to it – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:28, 21 November 2007 (EST)

ATOW1996

 *  Delete .Redirect to Greenland According to Wikipedia and Jpatokal it's tiny, only been visited once in the history of mankind, and isn't really a practical destination unless you're part of a professional expedition, etc. You can't sleep there, eat there, or do much of anything there – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:11, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Northern Greenland and put any relevant information in that article. The only possible way to visit ATOW1996 would be as part of a larger expedition through this area. Certainly a 10-meter long rocky outcrop in the middle of a sea of ice doesn't need its own article. At least not until they built a Disney World there. (WT-en) Texugo 01:48, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Disney on ice indeed! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:08, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Northern Greenland. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:21, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Happyskicard area.jpg & Image:Leysin ski map.jpg

 * Delete. Look very much like a copyvio, and most likely from the official Leysin website, though uploader licensed them as pd-old. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. The image is freely and publicly available on posters and banners in Leysin. I rather think that Leysin Tourism far from regarding it as a copyright violation, would regard it as useful information.
 * Unless the copyright holder releases it under a Creative Commons license, we cannot use it. Making it available does not constitute a release. If you think it should be kept, ask them for a release. (WT-en) Pashley 18:20, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Both deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:28, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Journeys International
Per Project:What is an article? 61.7.183.4 00:01, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:12, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep. It should be appropriate to list tour operators on Wikivoyage. Aren't travelers often interested in finding travel agents and tour operators?  Welcome, business owners encourages businesses to add listings.  I believe I followed the guidelines for Words to avoid and Don't tout.  I admit it should be longer, but that's not grounds for deletion. (WT-en) David-journeys.travel 08:43, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Tour operators are generally welcome in destination articles, as long as they're primary providers and not just resellers. This makes sense when you think about it: people are unlikely to find you by searching for your company name, but they can find out about you by reading (eg.) Antarctica. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. Appreciate your attempt to participate in the process, but Project:What is an article? trumps all. We don't have articles for tour operators. You could put that text on User:(WT-en) David-journeys.travel, but that's about it. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Should we add "tour operators" to the list of what DOES NOT get its own article on Project:What is an article? (WT-en) David-journeys.travel 09:24, 5 November 2007 (EST)
 * Well, the rule of thumb is that it's not a destination unless you can sleep there... but sure, I've added it for completeness. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)
 * Would a "Tour operators" travel topic article or a group of smaller ones, "Tour operators in Asia" and siblings, work? I'd say likely for out-of-the way places like Antartica, but then that might just be covered in the Antartica article. I'm not certain having an article for e.g. "Tour operators in the US" is a good idea, but it seems worth asking. It would solve two problems for this contributor. It provides a place to put his material and it does not matter that the info on one operator is too short for much of an aricle; it is just fine as a bullet point in a larger article. (WT-en) Pashley 20:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

 * I would say emphatically NO... that's opening a fairly large can o' worms. Can you imagine what "Tour operators in Kathmandu" might look like? Yikes. I'm of the opinion that listing tour operators should be reserved for times when guides are required or are a very good idea due to high risk situations... but I know there's others with differing opinions, so... there's my $0.02 – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:24, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:31, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Paris_4th_place_des_vosges.jpg
Uploaded to shared. (WT-en) WTDuck2 15:16, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted; image now on Wikivoyage Shared. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Gay and lesbian travel
Supporting phrase removed to comply with blacklist is not the task of wikivoyage 64.72.125.6 10:55, 23 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete Wikivoyage should not support illegal and immoral activities. What would be the xext? Traveladvice for cheap prostitutes, for child abuseres, Trafficing Of Women or drug trafficing. Thefore also the article about homosexuals must be deleted !!! 72.9.247.74
 * Let's put this through the process in spite of the offensiveness of the request. Keep; it's a valid travel topic. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep A valid travel topic. Not sure what would be xext. --(WT-en) OldPine 11:21, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete Not a valid travel topic, because it refers to an illegal acivity (in many countries) and is deterrent to society (WT-en) 4711 12:43, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. For one, none of the reasons for deletion anyone has outlined above has anything to do with our Deletion policy. Second, it's a valid travel topic, and Wikivoyage isn't the only website to see that. Other travel sites like Orbitz and Travelocity also make an effort to accommodate gay and lesbian travelers. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:16, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. Without a deletion policy-related rationale, articles do not get deleted. The policy on illegal activities states that when an activity is illegal somewhere, we should relay that information to travelers for their own safety; it does not suggest that we avoid giving useful information to travelers, which is exactly what this article does, in line with the mission of Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:23, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. Reasons for deletion not valid. --(WT-en) Morph 15:29, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * DELETE. Sex tourism is banned from Wikivoyage. Obviosly there is no difference between prostitution and other phrase removed to comply with blacklist like homosexuality. If pricing infos for prostitution are banned homosexual activities should not be supported either!!! 69.89.21.75 15:41, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * What our sex tourism policy states is that we will not have information on where/how to actually engage in sexual activities. This sort of info isn't what's in the gay and lesbian travel guide. Rather, what's in there is info about where homosexuality is illegal and where gay and lesbian travelers would find themselves most welcome. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:58, 25 November 2007 (EST)

 * Keep, topic is valid, the deletion nomination sounds incredibly homophobic. --(WT-en) The Yeti 16:04, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep, censorship based on personal opinions is simply ridiculous. I don't believe we should burn so much dinosaur juice, but I will support anyone's right to create articles on flying. I think the world is overpopulated and we should have less kids, but I'll support anyone's right to create articles like London with children. I think China has an atrocious human rights history and they should abolish communism, but I'll support their right to have articles here. Same goes for Gay and lesbian travel --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:28, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep We need not get into which is the best spot to pick up cute boys, but information on where gays might be shot and where they hang out is a sensible thing to have. Also, as for prostitution, the info is also useful to those who want to avoid the activity, to stay out of the red light district or the the gay bars. (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep Gay and lebian travelers are an identifiable and well-defined set of travelers. --(WT-en) Wandering 20:29, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Speedy keep. The addition of this to the vfd page by the anon vandal should have been reverted as vandalism... let's stop feeding the troll – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:56, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep, of course. It's great to have so many anonymous users at identical levels of semi-literacy involved in the policy process, though. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * DELETE It is a clear violation of the Sex tourism policy (WT-en) 009 17:11, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Stating that it is a clear violation does not make it so. The sex tourism policy is about prostitution and similar activities, which is not a topic covered in the nominated article.  The fact that the person who wrote the sex tourism policy also contributed to the nominated article should give you some clue that the nominated article is not in conflict with policy. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:11, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. Nominator made no valid nomination per the Fine Rules.  Nominator would need to cite a reason per the deletion policy rather than just say he doesn't like it.  Oh, and each person only gets one vote, so there's only one vote against currently. See also Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:11, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Cacahuate is right. This is a speedy keep. See policy discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy. I'm closing it now. (WT-en) Pashley 05:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: kept.

Golden Temple
Not an article. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:22, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. Agree. --(WT-en) OldPine 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Amritsar. This is a famous site; people might know of it but not know the city. Treat it like Taj Mahal with a redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 20:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Amritsar – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:58, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect. It's reasonable for people to look for an article by this name, even though it's not exactly a destination/you-can-sleep-there, so help them navigate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:00, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Amritsar. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Newnescreekrd.JPG
Violates image policy by having recognizable person in the photo. -- (WT-en) OldPine 20:48, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:55, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Image:Om-beach.jpg

 * Delete. Copyvio from here – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete.

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Image:Hummer and Escalade limousine.jpg
Advertisement, has nothing to do with a destination/topic/etc. I was tempted to speedy-delete this, but when in doubt, follow the process... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:05, 14 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. Would support a speedy. -- (WT-en) OldPine 19:44, 14 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. Pimp my VFD. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:55, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

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


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2008

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

Hotel woodland and Hotel Woodland(Pathankot)
A hotel is not an article.
 * Speedied and left a message on User Devilsconviction's talk page- (WT-en) Texugo 09:26, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Image:MAC NIT.jpg
I don't know if it is copyright or not, but it is commercial in style at least. A photo montage with gigantic text is inappropriate for use on Wikivoyage.
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 01:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * I dunno; assuming its free of copyright, I kinda like having a montage as the lead image. At least, I think it's a valid option that editors could decide to use.  I agree the big text is non-optimal for our purposes.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:31, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * The idea of a montage image doesn't bother me much in principle, but the result is that unless you make the image gigantic, all the individual photos end up being too small to see any detail. (WT-en) Texugo 09:07, 26 November 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 23:28, 28 November 2008 (EST).

 * Delete. I think the idea of a montage goes against the idea of a wiki.  With any other picture or article, any image or part of the article can be changed or edited.  A montage doesn't feel open, it is one person's expression that can't then be modified.  The montage should only be allowed if all the source images and references are uploaded also.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)

User:(WT-en) Phoenixraven
This guy doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of English, which really is a big rule here:Know English! I suggest we redirect this guy to Chinese? But we need to delete his membership, unless he shows a understanding of English. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 21:22, 17 November 2008 (EST).
 * Keep. This is a bit of weird case, but we don't delete users, ever.  And, since there are no external links, I don't see any harm in keeping his weird rants on his talk page either. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * But he doesnt know English. Why is he  on the english one?  It doesnt make sense, we need someone who knows his dialect to tell him!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 00:02, 18 November 2008 (EST).
 * Just wanted to comment that anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikivoyage, regardless of the language version, and regardless of their language proficiency. Someone with no knowledge of English can, for example, contribute images & interwiki links. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Keep the user and the talk page. However, I deleted all the Chinese text. (WT-en) Pashley 06:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Oy...I dont think you guys see where I am coming from. Now you are all lookin at me like an idiot.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST).

Email someone at wikivoyage
We should delete this page as it isn't a valid name for a page so it doesn't contribute any, but we should move his question to his talk pg. Whatcha say?

 * Delete. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 17:37, 18 November 2008 (EST).

Tour Guides

 * Delete. This seems like an encyclopedic entry, which doesn't work towards our goals of aiding travelers. It also seems to have only ever existed to spam for a certain site. I'd say rewrite, but I can't really imagine how we could turn this into a useful travel topic. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. It also appears to be copyright violation, see guides association, Google book and several others. (WT-en) Pashley 09:59, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Chavín de Huantar (was Chavin)
I'm not completely sure this skeletal article should be deleted; it does point to a real archaeological site. However, I've been unable to find any evidence that it qualifies as a "destination" in terms of places to sleep, etc. Someone want to do some research? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:37, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep/Move Just been having a quick read of the Wikipedia entry and the Wikivoyage policies. As you say, it is a real archaeological site. Whilst these don't necessarily qualify for their own entries, What is an article? does suggest that sites that are "far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay" means that this site may be an exception, given Lima seems to be 250km (155 miles) away. I suspect this will be at least a 4 hour trip each way, and so would qualify as too far away for a day trip. My Peruvian geography isn't great though, so does anyone know if there is a significant settlement any nearer? However, the article does need some fleshing out to be worthwhile.

 * I suggest a Move as Chevin seems to refer to a people, and so not elegible for an article. The proper name appears to be Chavín de Huantar, and so may be more in keeping with policy if the article were renamed to reflect this. (WT-en) Nrms 09:05, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

 * OK, so no-one's objected in 14 days to this being moved, so have done so.

 * Only 1 other person has commented so far. No real consensus either way, but no-one's actually given a firm Delete yet, so is there a way forward? (WT-en) Nrms 05:09, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep You can sleep there now (as of 2 minutes ago) :o) (WT-en) Sertmann 05:49, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

 * OK, this looks like a Keep/Move to me now. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:50, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept but moved, as suggested. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Image:Sage.jpg
Copyrighted image from http://www.bluesagegrille.com/.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 23:07, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Image:Kennys.jpg
Copyrighted image from http://www.kennys.us/.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 23:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Image:VIVA.jpg
Outcome for the above three: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 23:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

John F. Kennedy International Airport

 * Delete? . I don't know for sure that this should be deleted. Does it meet our criteria for an airport getting an article? It should be city-sized to do so, with sleep options within the airport, I believe. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd be willing to waive the "sleep there" requirement for the largest, most complex airports, due to their importance to the traveler. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, that's the thing—the largest, most complex airports (like Heathrow, Osaka, and O'Hare for example) all do have sleep options. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * But it's not just the sleeping options that make those articles useful to the traveler. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * The biggest International gateway to the United States should not be deleted from Wikivoyage. That's a strange criteria that you have that says that the airport must have an onsite on hotel. Atlanta is the biggest aiport in the world for passengers, Memphis is for cargo, NYC-JFK is the biggest gaetway as already said, and LAX is the second largest gateway and it has no onsite hotel. That's a flawed criteria and these airports should not only be here but all airports should ultimately be here as is the case with Wikipedia. I am updating and significantly expanding the JFK article in preparation for it to remain on Wikivoyage. (WT-en) QualityControl3533 02:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Those are all reasons why they would qualify for articles on Wikipedia, but we have much different needs here. The question is whether there's much to say that actually serves a traveler and helps on their trip... information about which airlines fly into JFK and how to get to and from it should be covered in the New York City section, not in a separate article. Random encyclopedic info about JFK should be covered in the Wikipedia article, not on Wikivoyage. Which leaves us with sleeping and eating options, and if there are no sleeping options, we don't exactly need an article about JFK that describes the variance between TGI Fridays in Terminal 1 and TGI Fridays in Terminal 2 – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * The section you linked largely discusses how to get into New York City from the airports, not how to get in to the airports themselves. Also, in addition to "Eat" and "Sleep", the sections for "Get around", "Stay safe", and "Buy" would be different for airport articles than for their surrounding cities.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I haven't even looked at NYC's get in section, it may well need expanding and improving, but without a doubt that's the correct place for the info I mention. And for pretty much any airport you could cover all 3 of the other topics you mention in as many sentences or less, if there's even anything relevant to say at all... "Get around" doesn't need a ton of explaining and can easily fit within the city's get in section, "Stay safe" is irrelevant for most airports but could also be covered in the city article if there's something pertinent and for "Buy", see my TGI Friday's example above ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I dunno, it just seems really odd not to have an article on one of the largest airports in the United States. I agree it's not much as far as a destination goes, but surely it's a valid travel topic?  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I'm not so sure... it's only purpose in life is to act as a portal to NYC, and we can describe how to make use of that just fine in the NYC article... beyond that, all else that you would say about it is probably going to be more relevant to the Wikipedia article on JFK rather than the WT one. Would Rough Guide devote a separate guidebook to discussing JFK? Or even devote a chapter to it? I would guess that they would cover it in a paragraph or two in the NYC guide – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Well, here's my mode of thinking. When I fly in to someplace new, if I'm going to be needing to find my way around an airport, I find it useful to know the general layout, where the borders between secured/unsecured areas are, where the food is (is there good food in the terminal wings or should I head out to the main concourse), what stores are available (duty free? not?), how big the place is, and any unusual or unique things to watch out for.  That seems like useful information for a travel guide.  If you think it can all go in the city article, so be it, but it makes more sense to me to have it in an article about the airport.  (WT-en) LtPowers 12:08, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

 * It is often good info, I just think it should be covered quickly in the city article if it's of note, unless and until it's just too unwieldy – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete for reasons given by Cacahuate. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * So it isn't helpful to know what cities each airline flies to from the biggest airport in the biggest city in the United States in a "travel guide"??? Also, if you already had the initial information without which cities each airline flies to in the NYC article then why did you create an identical offshoot of the GetIn section to begin with? (WT-en) QualityControl3533 01:34, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Well, the idea is that we should have information on which cities fly into JFK, but that we shouldn't separate that from the NYC article--spreading information across many pages usually makes finding it more difficult, and should only be done when there's just too much information to include in one article (that's why, for example, it's necessary to split city information for NYC across district pages). In my experience, when an airport isn't big enough for its own article (and to this date, we've only done airport articles for the very largest ones in the world, not just the largest within important cities) it can be helpful to wrap a bunch of airport information into a district article (that contains the airport), along with the usual district info. I did this with Chicago/Midway Area—perhaps that might be a useful way to handle JFK? I don't know, since I've only ever used Newark International for NYC. So I'm still abstaining from a vote for now ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

 * The only reason that this would qualify as an article is if there was too much valid and well written info in NYC#Get in and it was becoming unruly and gargantuan... that isn't the case... and if it someday becomes the case, then we can discuss at Talk:New York City and come up with a solution then, no? Let's solve the problem once it needs solving – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Let's merge what we have then and continue the expansion that has already started here in the NYC article then instead of just deleting everything. How about let's stop saying what we know is the best move to make and make it! (WT-en) QualityControl3533 22:56, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge with NYC Article(WT-en) QualityControl3533 22:59, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Looks like a consensus is forming around a merge & delete redirect solution. Sounds good to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Merge and redirect would be better, wouldn't it? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Yes! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:37, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I'm not a regular here, but I say keep - a lot of people come through JFK but are not visiting NYC. JFK is a major hub for international flights.  It would be useful to have information there about food, shops, etc.  What about internet access? Also, even though there are no hotels right at the airport, what to do if you get stuck there?  There are hotels right around the airport.  The Ramada Plaza JFK International Airport is located onsite, and there are several others in the area, convenient to the airport.  There is plenty to say here that would be far too detailed in the NYC article. It's the same way that an article about Heathrow Airport can be useful, and I wouldn't want to bother finding that all the same information within the London article. (WT-en) Aude 19:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, but it looks as though the consensus is that until we have that much information on JFK, then there's no need for a separate article. I can see the reasoning.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I like Wikivoyage, but wouldn't bother looking in the NYC article for information about JFK (if I was just passing through). I would keep looking elsewhere than Wikivoyage.  Since so many people just pass through, it makes sense to go ahead and keep the article and improve it. (WT-en) Aude 19:36, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * First, don't worry about being a regular or not, your opinion is always welcome ;) You're right—but that's why we should have the redirect to New York (city). If you search for JFK airport, that should take you straight to the information in the get in section of NYC, where you should find what you are looking for. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry, but there is nothing about food or hotels near JFK in the NYC article. Nor should that be the place to put it.  Also, I would seriously forget about wikivoyage and just look elsewhere.  But if we keep the JFK article, then people can put information useful to people passing through the airport and not visiting NYC.  And people might find wikivoyage useful and not need to look elsewhere. Remember the traveller comes first. (WT-en) Aude 01:43, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge with NYC article Why not have the BEST and MOST comprehensive travel guide that would satisfy anybody's travel needs when using this airport or visiting New York City? If I were going to NYC the first thing I would consider is what airline or transportation takes me to thet city from where I live. My edits to the article, which have now been restored and will be expanded if the article is merged, and incorporating that into the NYC article do just that. Aude is basically saying that we should keep the article solo, removing so much information that their edits had rendered it unfit to stand alone, and then going on to say that Wikivoyage isn't really that important anyway so why bother. How does that help anything? (WT-en) QualityControl3533 00:57, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I'm curious where it is you think you're going to go as an alternative to Wikivoyage where you are expecting to find entire chapters devoted to airports and what to do in and around them... I've never come across such a guide – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Merge and Redirect. That's where I come down. No one mentions the slippery slope of deciding where the line between large and small airports is drawn? That ought to be worth a couple million lines of off-namespace edits. 12:11, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Hmm, I think I mentioned it. The same criterion for any article—can you sleep there. And I don't mean whether it's quiet enough to get a nap across 3-4 seats by the gate. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Comment: A question that may (or may not) affect the outcome on JFK: Talk:New York (city). Please comment there. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:42, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Undecided Sorry... I want to say Keep as I think large airports should have articles (has there been a policy discussion on this matter?) since some people can end up spending many hours in them either through having to arrive early for flights, or lengthy connections. However, having read the article in question, I'm not really sure there is any benefit to be gained from the article. Perhaps a Rewrite is what is needed. Sadly, having never used this airport I'm not really in a position to offer to do this. (WT-en) Nrms 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

 * We need to close the book on this one. I'd say the consensus is to keep it, although there's still division in the house.  Again, starting a 24-hour clock here; if there are no new points being made, I'll archive it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:11, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

 * I think the consensus it to keep the info, but merge it into NYC article... but we're back to the issue of that nobody actually puts in the work to do it before the vfd closes :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:34, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep and come up with a policy regarding airports. First of all the article os of poor quality and is not comprehensive. However, if someone living near or knowledgeable about the airport took the time to clean it up, then it is something that should be kept, here's my thinking: First of all, there are a lot of airports with their own page on Wikivoyage...just search "airport". JFK is a major airport for international flights, thus many people will spend time in the airport transferring between a domestic and international flight or vica versa. It deserves its own page not simply because lots of people use it, but because for many it is just a destination...with shopping, food, sleep, etcetera...look at the O'Hare International Airport article! Putting it into the NYC article wold be too cluttering because there are at least 2 large airports serving NYC and putting a large chunk of information into the NYC article wold further clutter it. If you merge it into a neighborhood article (Brooklyn?), it would be hard to find for people unacquainted with the city, and people would have to put things like food, sleep, etc into those sections in the neighborhood article, cluttering those and potentially causing confusion. So I think it should be left alone (and it would be great if someone would expand it). Additionally, there needs to be a policy about airports on this site. If you are going to be deleting airports due to their lack of importance...try starting with Comiso Airport or San Diego International Airport . (WT-en) AHeneen 00:06, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

 * We pretty much came to a consensus to merge the relevant info back into NYC, this is only still sitting here because nobody has taken the initiative to do it yet. I just had a look, and there's really not much worth keeping that isn't already in NYC article, so I've redirected it (along with San Diego and Comiso :)) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: redirected – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:39, 2 November 2008 (EST)

San Diego Zoo

 * Merge. Info should be merged into San Diego page. (WT-en) 2old 15:51, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge, but into San Diego/Balboa Park-Hillcrest, not San Diego. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Merfe, in San Diego/Balboa Park-Hillcrest. There's some good tidbits here. --(WT-en) Tally talk 15:55, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 * And obviously, I meant merge. Stupid fingers!
 * Placed a merge tag - (WT-en) Texugo 07:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)

User:(WT-en) It's So Easy Travel Insurance

 * Delete. userpage advertising (WT-en) 2old 09:35, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * See Wikivoyage Shared, Advertising policy. (WT-en) 2old 11:10, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * My understanding is that the advertising policy exists for sitewide advertising by Internet Brands. In the case of an individual user I think Project:Don't tout and Project:User page help would probably be the most relevant guidelines. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:03, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep. We're generally pretty liberal with user pages, and Project:Welcome, business owners contains the guidance "...it's quite alright to put information about yourself and your business on your User page (if you don't turn it into a marketing brochure)".  I don't think this page does more than describe the business, and while it would have been nice if this user made a contribution other than just advertising his business I don't think we want to set a precedent of preventing user pages from containing business info for travel-related commercial contributors. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:21, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. Agree with Ryan – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep (WT-en) Pashley 01:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete If we allow unfettered advertising on users homepages, then its a can of worms. Every business can place a full ad page on wikivoyage. Waut for the first trademark dispute on usernames.  Its far away from the goal of creating a travel guide --(WT-en) Inas 04:40, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Just a note, this is also up for VFD on shared, please voice your opinions there too, since this is a precedent-setting issue – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. We already established a policy consensus on this issue, and consensus cannot be overturned by vfds, as they require a rationale per policy, provided one exists. In other words, vfds cannot serve as a workaround the consensus process. If we want to readdress the issue, that should be done there, not here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * If there is a consensus there, I think it is that user pages should be within reasonable limits, and what is reasonable can be handled through the VFD process (since there is no other!) If this page remains unchanged, essentially it sets a precedent that any company can set up a home page with their ads on wikivoyage, no requirement to make a conttribution to the guide, just log on, create an ad, and move on.  If we decide that lies within our reasonable limits, then so be it.. --(WT-en) Inas 07:17, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

 * My understanding of the outcome of that discussion was that we'll respect userspace up to the point at which it becomes linkspam, or is inappropriate because it either: violates our sex tourism policy, or is fraudulent. I'd also delete pages that are being used for cyber-bullying. You'll note that in that discussion I came down on the side of deleting ads in userspace, but my main point is that this page, which is the only page where we use the guilty until proven innocent rule, cannot be used as a workaround discussions or existing consensus. That would violate the basic principle of how our site works, and can really poison debate (this has happened before). Preserving our consensus-based mode of working together is way more important than the outcome of this issue, IMO. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:34, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Somewhat ironically, it appears we disagree over the consensus. --(WT-en) Inas 22:00, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Apologies to those who consider that what I have written is not appropriate here. As someone who works in a specialist area of insurance, I was hoping to warn and inform people by writing something. It was my first time visiting the site and I don't wish to contravene its intentions. Somehow, what I wrote was originally in the 'shared' part of the site - I was learning about the site and didn't even realise I was in that section - it was all a bit confusing! I thought I was remaining within the guidelines laid out for businesses. Apologies if I have failed. I would rather amend my article and, hopefully, write others that might be useful to people than just be deleted altogether. I'd be happy to receive guidance. --(WT-en) It's So Easy Travel Insurance 17:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

 * We have an article on Travel insurance. Contributions there would be welcome provided you don't tout. (WT-en) Pashley 06:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Sooo, can the consensus on this one be interpreted as keep? --(WT-en) Stefan Talk 06:47, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * I'd go with that. There is policy allowing userpage advertising, within limits. It's also nice to see that the user concerned has at least had the courtesy to apologise/acknowledge the vfd and seems willing to be educated by the community. (WT-en) Nrms 06:52, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: kept

Www.capecodbeachcottages.com

 * Delete Speedy? Was a tout page. Content has been removed. (WT-en) Nrms 17:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedied. Definitely not a valid article title.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:27, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted.

Tokyo/www.liveinasia.com
Not a valid article title.
 * Delete' --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 01:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted.

Sintran
If neither Wikipedia or Google know of a region named Sintran, i do have my doubt that such place exists ;-) probaby refers to Sintra which already have good coverage
 * Delete - (WT-en) Sertmann 12:10, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Yeah, delete. Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 16:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Sintra. General policy is to set up redirects for articles with titles that are plausible typing errors.  I'm not totally sure this one qualifies, but what's the harm? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:50, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Sure. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Redirect Agree with Bill. As discussion is over 14 days old, ee has changed his delete to a redirect, I'll do the redirect. (WT-en) Nrms 06:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Sintra

www.TheRosalie.com
Outcome: Was speedied by Cjensen on Nov 4th
 * Delete Not a travel destination (WT-en) Nrms 15:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Sunsip limopani market share

 * Delete Not a travel article. (WT-en) Nrms 03:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted. No point in waiting.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Call of duty 4 modern warfare
Vandalism, someone please speedy this (WT-en) Sertmann 09:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)

 * Speedy deleted by (WT-en) Cjensen

Image:Ocean Rafting brochure.jpg

 * Delete Firstly, because it is likely a copyvio. Secondly, because it is a bizarre concept, that should not be encouraged.  Thirdly, it is a really really bad photo.  --(WT-en) Inas 00:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete - It's just a bad idea all around. (WT-en) Texugo 00:39, 7 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedied as copyvio. As a derivative work, the photographer can't release it into the public domain.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Image:Ascen-ishinca-tocllaraju-.jpg
As above, image copyright violation from http://www.turismo-en-peru.com.
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 01:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)
 * Do you have a link directly to the image on that web site? I can't find it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 00:44, 8 November 2008 (EST).
 * I just suspected it because the entire article was copyvio, but I found the link here. I speedied it. (WT-en) Texugo 00:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)

How many people are in Vanacover
Obviously not an article, despite the swell spelling job.
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 04:13, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Image:coast.jpg
Official advertising flyers have no place in Wikivoyage, not to mention the likely copyright violation.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 23:52, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Should not be here.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 23:54, 8 November 2008 (EST).
 * Speedy deleted. Copyvio, trademark violation, and too small to boot.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Hotelein.com

 * Delete This is an advertisment page; not a destination. Have left welcome message and some advice on the associated user talk page to try and educate. (WT-en) Nrms 05:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)

La Linea

 * Delete I added this page before I realised it should have had an accent in the title. The correct page is La Línea, which is where the pages on Algeciras and Gibraltar now link to. (WT-en) Linucks 14:57, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * (WT-en) Peter redirected it, as appropriate. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * Keep - We typically keep the unaccented page title as a redirect, as a courtesy for those who can not conveniently type special characters on their keyboards. (WT-en) Texugo 01:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: redirected. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Makemytrip
Since this is not a user page, i think it's an apt candidate for a speedy deletion - anyone with janitorial privileges care to chip in? :o) (WT-en) Sertmann 06:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

 * Shouldn't you have them by now? Been well over 14 days, and no-one's objected :) But if there is anyone out there, I'd support a speedy. It's a clear ad page. Sertmann... Have you "educated" the user by pointing out the relevant policy on their Talk page yet? :) (WT-en) Nrms 06:34, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * weeeeeell, I was.... erm... sort of, getting to that - shortly, of some sorts :o) (WT-en) Sertmann 06:36, 13 November 2008 (EST)

 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 06:37, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Www.cafe-moda.com
Not an article.
 * Speedied -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)

LanguageFa.php and Project:LanguageFa.php

 * Don't know what these are, but they aren't articles and I'm pretty sure we don't need them as they were just created three weeks ago. Probable speedies.  BTW, I can't add a VFD tag to the pages because something in them triggers the spam filter.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 17:44, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedied. They were large chunks of PHP code, possibly parts of the Mediawiki software. (WT-en) Pashley 06:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Vampire in Transylvania, the awarded Dracula Tour
Content was all copyvio from here, and the article is not really named in a wikivoyage style, unsuitable to be re-written since of course any new itinerary article here has not been "awarded" anything.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 20:51, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedied. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

River Street Streetcar
Anonymous user created this and doesn't belong to be it's own article.

 * Delete. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 22:14, 17 November 2008 (EST).
 * Speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Sunset beach club

 * Delete This is a resort rather than a destination. Possibly add as a "Sleep" if there is a relevant destination page? (WT-en) Nrms 09:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Image:Images-3.jpg
Copyrighted image from http://www.yellowspringsohio.org/street_fair.html.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 22:44, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Image:West chester pa 547e.jpg
Copyrighted image from http://www.west-chester.com/.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 23:48, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Image:Fall bluebacksquare.jpg
A painting of a commercial facility. Also a likely copyright infringement but I don't have proof.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 01:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 * With all these copyright's, why not try and get an agreement? I'm on 'delete until further notice. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Image:Hellertown1.jpg
Copyrighted image-- copyright notice is printed right on the photo!
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 03:20, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) Sertmann 17:49, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Ross-shire

 * Delete Might seem like I'm being unfair here, but the page has nothing linking to it. It refers to an old Scottish County (not UK City as the page states) which no longer exists, and only has one item which is an Inn with only a phone number supplied. The page has been like this since it was created in March 2008.

 * I'm not sure a page on a defunct county should qualify for a travel guide - seems more an encyclopedic entry unless someone really wants to turn it into some sort of itinery? (WT-en) Nrms 09:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete (WT-en) Sertmann 21:36, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Image:Hanoi.dongxuanmarket.jpg

 * Delete Recognizable people in picture (WT-en) Sertmann 05:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 08:47, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep I mean, it looks like an interesting picture and the people aren't really the focus, they just add to the picture and I like it. They are an element of the picture.  It makes it not look like a ghost town, ;).  Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 16:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete. The bike man is the focus of the picture, which is the problem. "Recognizable" isn't the issue though, it's whether any single person is the focus, we allow pictures of markets/crowds with recognizable people as long as they aren't the focus and the picture could stand alone without them – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:26, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

All images by Wfnicdao
This user uploaded some maps from commons and called them PD when they weren't, so I'm listing all their images here, again all noted as PD, and I doubt they are. If user cares to link to the sources then we can reconsider, otherwise all should be deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:22, 2 November 2008 (EST)

 * Image:Pagudpud001.jpg
 * Image:Pagudpud002.jpg
 * Image:Bolinao001.jpg
 * Image:Bolinao002.jpg
 * Image:Bolinao003.JPG
 * Image:Bolinao004.JPG
 * Image:Bolinao005.JPG
 * Image:Bolinao006.jpg
 * Image:Bolinao007.JPG
 * Image:Bolinao008.JPG
 * Deleted all -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Paris hotels
This page is unneccessary. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 23:25, 4 November 2008 (EST).
 * It's already been redirected to Paris, as it should be. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:55, 5 November 2008 (EST)

 * Redirected -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Ascension Ishinca – Tocllaraju – Alpamayo – Quitaraju
Created presumably as an itinerary, but with text in spanish and an image all copied from http://www.turismo-en-peru.com.
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 01:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)
 * DELETE.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 17:38, 18 November 2008 (EST).
 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

THE THREE LITTLE GORGES
Improper article title, and all content was copyvio from http://www.discoveryangtze.com/Yangtzediscovery/little_three_gorges.htm.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 04:10, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete, unlikely search term with that capitalization. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 06:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Poland:Narrow-gauge_railways

 * Delete This is a 2 line page which should really be on the Poland page; so have added the text there so this can be deleted. (WT-en) Nrms 05:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * Support I just don't see this developing into a decent separate article. (WT-en) Sertmann 05:42, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * Because it was merged, we should change it into a redirect, maintaining the page history for attribution purposes. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)
 * Outcome: Merge and redirect to Poland (WT-en) Nrms 05:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Simi

 * Redirect Seems to be an alternative spelling for Symi which already exists as a substantial article. (WT-en) Nrms 07:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Wikipedia says they're the same. Feel free to redirect it yourself.  Syme should also be a redirect.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Outcome: Redirected to Symi. Also created Syme to redirect to Symi (WT-en) Nrms 05:35, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Three gorges dam
An attraction, not a destination. Not properly capitalized, and all content was copyvio from http://www.discoveryangtze.com/Yangtzediscovery/three_gorges_dam.htm.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 04:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Redirect to closest destination article, likely search term. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Redirect to Along_the_Yangtze_river (WT-en) Pashley 06:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * Outcome: Redirected to Along_the_Yangtze_river

Lake Towada

 * Redirect It's a body of water so not eligible for its own article. Would suggest a redirect to Aomori (prefecture) although the Lake Towada page has 2 other pages that link to it. (WT-en) Nrms 07:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Redirect to Towada-Hachimantai National Park. (I've also moved the Oirase Valley to point here.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)