text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2009

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

A tour of contrasts in East Asia

 * Delete. This article has no real focus, and while noted as an itinerary, doesn't actually highlight any sort of route. At the moment it just seems to duplicate the purpose of the East Asia article from a somewhat ethnocentric point of view. I don't see any value in watching this develop as an article, and if what the creator was trying to say about contrasts needs to be said, it can be covered succinctly and more eloquently at East Asia – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:31, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. Agreed. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 01:40, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * Keep. Deletion policy says: "Article entries should not be deleted from the site when a legitimate article can be written for the subject. Some examples: ... Really bad articles. Sometimes articles are a sloppy mess, or just a bunch of notes and ideas. These articles should be improved rather than deleted."
 * This is not even a really bad article, just a somewhat bad article in need of more work. (WT-en) Pashley 09:56, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * Using that rationale we would never delete a travel topic. Travel topics and itineraries need a good focus to be useful, they don't really seem to work as stubs for the most part, unless it's something straightforward like packing. In practice, I don't think that line applies to these types of articles at all, but more to the destination guides, and should probably be clarified – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 10:49, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * This is far from a stub, though; there's quite a bit of material. I think it has potential. (WT-en) Pashley 20:52, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * There's nothing about it right now that doesn't apply to and belong at East Asia.... and a lot of text, but imo mostly fluff.... if you think there's useful info, I suggest copying it over there before this gets deleted, it's already been 14 days.... with no compelling arguments brought to keep it – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 21:11, 12 February 2009 (EST)

 * Merge and redirect. I don't see any reason to keep this information separate from East Asia. It's not an itinerary, and as a travel topic, I think it would serve only to needlessly duplicate (and fragment) travel content. Merging would be useful though—our continent and continental section articles tend to be really underdeveloped. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * DeleteThis page contains information about the entire continent of Asia, not simply East Asia, as Southeast Asia is also included. It reads like a Wikipedia article, NOT a travel itinerary. The idea of having a tour of contrasts is interesting, but this "tour" is is not a tour. It doesn't list any actual attractions or even specific countries that one should visit in order to see the "contrast of Asia". It just lists the nations. For someone looking to tour Asia, there is nothing of use on this page... If you DO redirect it, it should be redirected to the continental page (Asia) not the East Asia page. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 08:32, 21 February 2009 (EST)

 * My opinion has changed to delete. Chubby makes a good point. iGuide also has identical text at ; did they get it from us or is this article a copyvio? (WT-en) Pashley 09:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:39, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Travel planning
There's discussion on the talk page as far back as 2004 wondering what the point of this article is, and no point has emerged in more than four years since, so it's not likely to develop a point now. (And note that no pages link to it.) The content is vague and almost completely useless — beginning with the sterling nugget "Planning your travel is generally a good idea." It's the Wikivoyage equivalent of a dictionary definition for the word 'is'. If you don't already know that you should plan your trip before you make it to Wikivoyage, you're never going to learn. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)
 * I can't really object to any of your points, but I should point out that all good dictionaries do include a definition for the word "is". Likewise, it could be argued that a comprehensive travel site should include travel planning information.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

 * Delete. Lets stay focused on real articles and travel topics, rather than these vague and general ideas. (If I were working on wiktionary, I'd be in favor of deleting is as well).  --(WT-en) Inas 01:21, 6 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'd bet you can't find a single comprehensive English dictionary that doesn't include the word "is". (WT-en) LtPowers 07:17, 6 January 2009 (EST)

 * I'd bet you're right — that's a good subject for writers of English dictionaries to chew over. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)

 * Delete. A little too general and fundamental to be useful. And as noted on the talk page, the article doesn't even have much to do with the title. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:50, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Secret Garden, Cotopaxi
Advertising, no links to or from it. Anything worth copying somewhere? (WT-en) Pashley 09:30, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Keep - The conent is barely advertising, unless you consider information about accommodation to be advertising. I thought giving information about accomodation was one Wikivoyage's goals. Although this place is listed in Cotopaxi, (and the content could easily improve that listing, making a redirect of it), I couldn't decide if Secret Garden was simply the name of the accommodation or if it was the name of a place that the accommodation was named after. If it was merged with Cotopaxi, it would imply that we then need a Cotopaxi National Park article, because this one suggests the Cotopaxi Valley is bigger than just the National Park. I think more work is needed with this one, using information from someone who knows the area, rather than just deleting it on sight. - (WT-en) Huttite 09:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete - I don't think Ms. Katherine named her lodge after some native locale name; this is clearly posted by someone wanting to attract business. If "Secret Garden" is a locally used name (which i highly doubt) then please give me some evidence to that end. (WT-en) Texugo 16:00, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete - We don't have articles for accommodation listings, and currently that is what this is. I'm surprised this isn't just speedied, like the many other business that create articles that are currently deleted for not being articles. --(WT-en) Inas 18:48, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:39, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:59, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Attractions
Misguided dupe of places in San Diego. Is this worth even redirecting somewhere, or just nuke it? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 * We should give the user a chance to copy any information over to the San Diego article, then delete. Or we could create a dummy page at Attractions and protect it to head off future mistakes of this sort.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:47, 16 January 2009 (EST)

 * Delete. Slippery slope if we start creating dummy articles of pages that could be created by accident.  --(WT-en) Inas 00:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * I don't see how that's a slippery slope. A slippery slope toward what?  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:41, 31 January 2009 (EST)

 * It is one thing to create redirects for common spelling mistakes, desination name variations, popular destination searches. They all seem valid cases for a redirect.  Its also a convenience for some things that are int the wikivoyage: namespace.  However, this seems to take this one step further.  Are we now saying that we are not going to delete completely invalid article names, that can never be articles, and will never be validly searched for?  Thats the slope I think is slippery --(WT-en) Inas 20:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect to Project:Listings - If it is getting created as a dummy article now, someone will surely do it again soon. If we point it at an article at talks about how to list attractions, maybe they will read it first and do what it says. (WT-en) Huttite 06:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect - I have no idea how the user thought that would be an adequate name for San Diego attractions, but I do think it could be a search term for someone looking to add attraction listings. (WT-en) Texugo 21:13, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect to Project:Attraction listings. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:59, 2 February 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect Peters suggestion seems to be a very wise one. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:43, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Project:Attraction listings. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Khargone
I believe this is written in Hindi, correct? I don't know what it says, but it certainly doesn't belong on the English version. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 12:20, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Rolled back to last English version. (WT-en) Pashley 12:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)

 * Keep, now that it's back to being in English. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Keep then --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Of course, with it in the right language, it is now keep-worthy, so feel free to slush this discussion. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 10:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Kept (more or less speedy). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:23, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Washington D.C. in under $300
Let's harvest information and incorporate into the main Washington, D.C. article, it's a good idea, but I do think it belongs better in a Washington on a budget section in the guide. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 08:41, 16 February 2009 (EST)

 * Merge with Washington D.C. sounds like a good idea. My other question would be under $300 for how long? - a minute, an hour, a day, a night, a week, a year, a purchase or a visit? The frame of reference makes a difference. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:57, 17 February 2009 (EST)

 * Delete. I see no real reason for redirection.  Maybe to merge some of the information makes sense.  -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:32, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. if only because the title is bad. "Washington DC on a budget" or "Washington DC on $300 a week" might be worthwhile; this can never be. (WT-en) Pashley 07:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

 * Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:26, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Disabled Travel in San Diego

 * Another San Diego travel topic which strikes me as unnecessary. While there may be some useful info here, the article seems woefully inadequate, since you'd probably be hard-pressed to find much of anything in San Diego that's unfriendly to disabled travelers. To cover everything would require a gigantic article much too big for us, and seeing as there isn't any similar article for any other city, I think we should just get rid of this one. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:41, 18 January 2009 (EST)
 * Keep - But as a Redirect. What about merging the content with San Diego and/or enhancing Disabled travellers and its sub articles? Much of the non-San-Diego-specific advice is probably going to be relevant to any disabled traveler. Perhaps a mention about how disabled (un?)friendly the place is generally in the Get Around section. It strikes me the topic is not just about travel but also facilities, so any listings of the attractions should also mention how they cater for disabled patrons. There is a big assumption in the article that Disabled means Wheelchair bound - travelling on wheels, rather than feet is just one aspect of being disabled. What about the Blind, with their guide dogs; the Deaf, with hearing aids and induction loops; or any number of special medical conditions that don't affect mobility but do cause a disability. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:50, 19 January 2009 (EST)

 * I agree, there is too much of an emphasis on the wheelchair bound. But anyway - Reading the article again, I don't see any non-San-Diego-specific advice in here. I'm fine with putting general info about disabled travel in San Diego on the San Diego article (such as in the Get Around section, like you said), but I think this should only be done if there is something unique about being a disabled traveler here versus any other major U.S. city, and in this case there really isn't. As for ensuring that "any listings of the attractions should also mention how they cater for disabled patrons", the big issue I have with that is that just about every attraction in a major tourist destination like San Diego will cater to disabled travelers in one way or the other. Do we really want to go to the trouble of putting the phrase "wheelchair-accessible" on every single attraction listing? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:14, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * The presumption, at least for U.S. locations, should be in favor of disabled access; we should only point out difficulties, not accommodations, that might affect disabled travelers. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:54, 25 January 2009 (EST)

 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 07:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)

 * Delete As per above, burn the damn thing to pieces. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:47, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 * Delete, without redirect. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:22, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Antique Shopping in San Diego

 * A travel topic article which strikes me as rather unnecessary. Antique shopping in San Diego doesn't strike me as being any more unique or much different than antique shopping in any other city of San Diego's size. I've copied the listings to the Buy sections of their respective articles, so I think we should just delete it. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:41, 18 January 2009 (EST)
 * If you've copied the listings, we should probably either redirect or delete only after doing a page history merge, in order to preserve the history. If not, just deleteing is fine.  Cheers, (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:54, 18 January 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry, but how do you do a page history merge? I'm afraid I haven't done one of those yet. Anyway, I didn't copy them exactly (I had to format them a little) but they are mostly the same. So I'm not sure which direction you want me to take here... (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:17, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * If the page was moved to San Diego, which deletes the San Diego article, then ALL the San Diego edits were restored (unless there are some deleted ones already) then the last good San Diego page was edited to bring it back to the top, that meres the page history. Check my deletion log, I did a page history merge the other day for a town in Morroco. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect to San Diego is better (WT-en) Huttite 06:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * Given that when you move a page, the original is kept as a redirect article anyway, it might make more sense to just redirect it rather than not deal with all that confusing stuff by merging (I also don't know how you restore edits), since redirecting will also preserve the page history. But I'd still rather just delete it. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:32, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, as I said a, Redirect ... is better ... than a page move and merge of history, as that confuses matters worse than a redirect. I was merely describing how a page move could be accomplished, not actually supporting it. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:02, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, I realize that. I'm sorry for essentially repeating what you already said, I just did it to make things clearer for myself and expressing why I personally wouldn't support the page history merge proposed by JYolkowski. :) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 20:48, 3 February 2009 (EST)

 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:33, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * I lean toward keep. Nearly all travel topics are unnecessary, but having a few extras does no harm and this one has some useful info. Moving the info to San Diego and deleting this would also make sense. It seems to me there's enough fairly specific info here to justify a separate article and to be problematic if merged, too much for the main article, but I have no strong objection to deletion.
 * The info has already been moved to the San Diego district articles. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:28, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * I do object fairly vigorously to the idea of a redirect here. I see absolutely no point to that. Either keep it or delete it. (WT-en) Pashley 09:16, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete Well, while I have no strong feeling on the matter, it seems Pashley does, so I'd say we burn the thing alive, and sink the ashes to bottom of the Mariana trench.
 * Delete, without redirect. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:22, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Getting active in San Diego
Yet another travel article about San Diego that I think simply duplicates things that should be in the district articles. I submit that it might ought to share the same fate as the other two San Diego topics vfd'd last month.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 08:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)

 * Keep. It's amazing how many of these there are. But unlike "Antique Shopping in San Diego" or "Disabled Travel in San Diego", I think this one is actually useful. It's got good info, it's a subject visitors to San Diego (as compared to say, Chicago) would be interested in, and it's rather convenient to have this info in one place rather than spread across multiple districts. However, I do recommend changing the name of the article to something more general, like "Outdoor recreation in San Diego", because 1) "getting active" sounds kind of tacky for a Wikivoyage article, and 2) if it was "outdoor recreation", I could transfer the info in Boating in San Diego over to this one and then redirect it. That'd make things a little neater. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)

 * Delete - another slippery slope. Could apply to any huge city, to cut across the district articles.  Getting active in London, Antique shopping in London, Markets browsing across London, Walks across London, Museums in London, Theatres in London.  Pointers to this information, where to keep active, should be in the main San Diego article, under Do.  Details in the districts.  District articles don't work well, but if we cut across them with travel topics articles describing things to Do across the areas, we risk sucking them dry.   People supporting keep should give a good reason why this can't go in the San Diego article.  If we keep this article, we should start to standardise names for these cross district theme articles.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:53, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * Merge and redirect. This one has good content that shouldn't be lost. But in general, if the content of a travel topic can be reworked into the format of our destination guides, it should be. Most of the content in the article can and should be moved to the "Do" sections of San Diego district articles, and a section on "Getting active" or something of that sort should be added to the main article, with links to the relevant district article "Do" sections. I recommend the redirect for SEO and in case the user who added this content wonders where it went.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:52, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * Inas, you make several excellent points, but I think I already explained my reasoning for voting to keep. But I'll go ahead with a merge and redirect, that sounds fine. I'll work on the merging in the days to come.
 * On a side note, while we're discussing the usefulness of travel topics that can be applied to virtually any city (which I do agree should be gotten rid of if possible), where does this leave the "(insert city) with children" articles? Are they a special exception? (I'm not asking to launch into a detailed discussion about the "(insert city) with children" articles here on the VFD page, I just thought I'd bring it up here.) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 11:47, 12 February 2009 (EST)

 * All worthy info has been merged. The article is ready for redirecting, when the time is right. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 00:20, 17 February 2009 (EST)

 * The X-city with children articles are a bit different, I'd say. They're similar to this one in that they are providing tailored information for a specific subset of travelers, but the difference is in that it's easy to collect the information in this one and put it into "Do" sections. We have an activities section already. Whereas information about traveling with children would be scattered around all sections of the city/district articles; accordingly I think the w/ children series of articles, even if they duplicate content, are useful. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)

 * Again, I think if we want to capture this information, then a  with children heading of the city article would make more sense than a separate article, with references to the appropriate district article when required.  I think the listings, references, should include prices, references for children, but a summary of some good places to go can't hurt.  Same as for special needs/wheelchair users, etc.  Probably need to move this dicussion somewhere else now   --(WT-en) Inas 17:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Peter writes "..in general, if the content of a travel topic can be reworked into the format of our destination guides, it should be.." and he's correct, but only "in general". At some point, there's enough specialised material that it should be moved to a separate article to avoid cluttering up the main article. I think this article is near that point. If rock climbing is a big deal in San Diego, then of course mention it in the main article and appropriate district articles. But if there's a lot to say, move it to a travel topic and link from the main article.

There are two main advantages. For those of us whose interest in such things is minimal, it avoids having a long list of 18 rock faces in the main article. For those who are into it, it lets you have a complete list in one article, without having to crawl through all the districts. It also gives opportunities for climber-ish discussion; classify by difficulty, whatever.

There's a balance to strike here. We do not want 777 travel topics about San Diego. Nor do we want lists of all the bike paths, all the chess clubs, ... in the destination articles.

An aside: "getting active" is appallingly ambiguous. My first thought on seeing the title was that someone had written an article on becoming politically active. Someone else, I suppose, might think sexually active. (WT-en) Pashley 03:08, 17 February 2009 (EST)

 * Delete I don't see any other user using that search time in the next millennia or so. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Begnas Lake
Hold We apparently really need to root out a policy on this, since alot of us are starting to second guess the current one. (see discussion for North Sea above). --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Delete - A copyright violation and a body of water, though a rewrite could make it a region. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:57, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 07:27, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I second the motion of clarifying our bodies-of-water policy, but this one strikes me as a clear delete. We're not talking here about something with the size, and ambiguities, of the North Sea or a Great Lake. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:53, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Touring Warsaw's Old Town
Only a few lines. Merge into Warsaw, delete this. (WT-en) Pashley
 * Delete. I've been slowly working on another itinerary anyway and the Old Town isn't really large enough to justify its own itinerary - just a couple streets and most people "touring" the Old Town will only be interested in two squares and a couple of churches, which are covered in Warsaw/Śródmieście. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:35, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Should there be a Warsaw/Old Town as a redirect? (WT-en) Pashley 04:36, 22 February 2009 (EST) Ooops: I see there is.
 * Delete Not a very likely search term --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Cultura de tiradentes
A Portuguese-named travel topic about the culture of Tiradentes, a historic but tiny town in Minas Gerais.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 09:00, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 07:29, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete Nice language, but we don't speak it here. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * It could be a Redirect to Tiradentes. - (WT-en) Huttite 07:29, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Without even addressing the fact that it isn't even capitalized properly... You would honestly encourage us to start allowing redirects for even non-travel topics titled in foreign languages? Would your vote be the same if the title was ティラデンテスの文化? I think this is a clear not a freakin' chance. Probably should have speedied it even. (WT-en) Texugo 07:45, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Image:Grand.JPG and Image:Picture_033.jpg
Both photos of restaurant interiors with recognizable people.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 07:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete against current policy --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Jonboy 08:38, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Both deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:53, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Image:Silver Lake.jpg
An image of a painting, with the copyright notice printed right across the image.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete against current policy --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:55, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Taman Mini Indonesia Indah
An attraction, not a destination.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 09:50, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:35, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete - attractions goes in cities --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:11, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Alvord desert
Deserts do not generally get their own articles.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 09:27, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:16, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Waco, tx

 * Waco article already exists. (WT-en) 2old 15:02, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Redirect as it's apparently a likely search term. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:54, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Merge with and redirect to Waco. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:11, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Now merged and redirected to Waco. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:49, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:23, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Raigad fort
An attraction, misnamed, and with content copied from Wikipedia.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 09:43, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete - attractions goes in cities --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Image:McCoy.JPG
After some guidance, user uploaded it to Shared instead.
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 13:08, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Speedied --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Www.fish-r-us.com
Self-explanatory, I hope. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:15, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Spedily Deleted On sight, then found it listed here. - A listing for the business could go in Acapulco. - (WT-en) Huttite
 * Oh! It was already there. - (WT-en) Huttite 02:32, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Speedied --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Wooden+Handicraft
Article name was broken, and content was copied from www.articlesbase.com/article-tags/silk-sarees
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 00:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Speedied --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

=== Nicknamed "the Gathering Place," and home to the only real metropolitan area in the Hawaiian Islands, Oahu is truly at the heart of Hawaii. For some, this has been both a blessing and a curse for the island. === Wow, I didn't know we could have such long article names. Content was copied from Oahu.
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 00:21, 4 March 2009 (EST)
 * Other than giving me my first good laugh of the day, this article is worthless and I agree with the decision. :P (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:05, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Speedied --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Ojai Valley Resort
Redirecting for now, but I see no reason to keep, since it's a page for a commercial enterprise.
 * Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 06:07, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Ojai Valley Inn
Redirecting for now, but I see no reason to keep, since it's a page for a commercial enterprise.
 * Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 06:07, 5 March 2009 (EST)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Inas 07:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

How To Buy A New Golf Driver
Not a valid travel topic, and blantant advertising for golfclub2000.com throughout.
 * Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 23:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 00:44, 8 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Speedied --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Www.bbvillagiuliana.com

 * Speedy Deletion of a website. Not a valid article name. Lister needs to list in the relevant article. - (WT-en) Huttite 07:16, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedied --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Www.experience-path.com
Not an article.
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 09:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedied --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Malaysian hokkien
Hokkien phrasebook currently redirects to Minnan phrasebook, which explains that Minnan is called Hokkien in Malaysia. I'm not familiar with these languages enough to know whether they should have two separate articles. This one is currently almost empty.
 * Dunno - (WT-en) Texugo 09:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * There's just one language, so I'd say we only need one article, It is called "Minnan hua", South Fujian speech, in Mandarin. Its own word for itself is "Hokkien", and that word is used in Singapore & Malaysian English. Probably the article should be at Hokkien phrasebook using the English name.

 * I do not think the regional variants Malaysian hokkien or Taiwanese need separate articles, just redirects. For Taiwanese, though, some would disagree on political grounds. (WT-en) Pashley 06:36, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * There's a rather messy discussion that is somewhat relevant at Talk:Taiwanese phrasebook. (WT-en) Pashley 19:42, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * Short answer: Redirect to Minnan phrasebook. Long answer: this issue is ridiculously complicated (see ). I would suggest redirecting everything to Minnan phrasebook, writing it up for Xiamen/Amoy dialect of Quanzhou–Zhangzhou with Peh-oe-ji romanization, and then possibly spinning off Taiwanese and Teochew phrasebook etc if there's need. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:35, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * Redirect I trust Jani's compentence on this --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Marble Arch Caves
An attraction.
 * Redirect to County Fermanagh - (WT-en) Texugo 10:05, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete/Redirect - No strong feelings either way --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Hotelsatmandarmani

 * Delete - as there is only a city template an the hotels should be listed on Mandarmani. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:56, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedied. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:48, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Cansilise

 * Delete - Contains graffiti and a Google search does not return any results. Nice name but I don't think it exists, or is mispelt. - (WT-en) Huttite 08:52, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Delete Wikipedia and geonames doesn't either. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:27, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. I think it would have been fine to speedy delete this one. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:27, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Tyre shops in sialkot
Not a destination or valid travel topic.
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 07:24, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Image:B-Home-Web.gif
Spam used in Luanda article. Picture does not belong on WT. (WT-en) AHeneen 15:42, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:31, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Kumbag et al.
The following articles created by an anonymous user are 100% linkspam: Kumbag, Şarköy, Babaeski, Demirkoy, Uzunkopru, Vize, Canakkale Province, Kirklareli Province, and Tekirdağ Province. All of them were previously stubs linked by other articles, so I think it's more useful to delete them and make it clear that there's no content behind those links yet, rather than turning them into redirects. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 19:33, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

 * All speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Wholesale polo shirts
I'm getting tired of even reporting this kind of speedy-delete here, bleh....
 * Speedied - (WT-en) Texugo 01:58, 24 March 2009 (EDT)


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2010

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

Lake Bolsena
Per Project:Bodies of water.
 * Redirect after merging any relevant info with Bolsena or Montefiascone. (WT-en) Texugo 23:53, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Retain as is. Wikivoyage:Bodies of water states that Lake Tahoe region is an acceptable article. Apart from size and importance I don't see any difference in approach here.(WT-en) Shep 02:08, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Lake Tahoe's article is allowed not because it is an article about a lake but because it is set up as a valid region article, fitting nicely into the hierarchy without overlap, etc., and listed in the parent article as a region. This is not the case here, nor with the two below. (WT-en) Texugo 04:22, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Retain all and improve Trasimeno. Neither Bracciano nor Bolsena are articles about lakes but about the areas around them. I don't see any overlap. I think what is relevant is how the area is perceived. In Reno they might say " let's go to Lake Tahoe". In Rome, people say "Let's go to Lahe Bracciano". For me the important thing is that, as individual cities, the towns around the two lakes don't really rate individual articles but as groups they come together nicely. (WT-en) Shep 06:43, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Store. (WT-en) Mistertalk 08:18, 2 February 2010 (EST)

 * Result: Keep. No consensus for deletion.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Lake Trasimeno
Per Project:Bodies of water.
 * Merge and redirect (WT-en) Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Result: Keep. Per the Bolsena and Bracciano discussions.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Lake Bracciano
Per Project:Bodies of water.
 * Merge and redirect (WT-en) Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep for all three lakes discussed above. I have just done a quick check. Lake Louise, Loch Lomond and Lake Garda are all on Wikivoyage. I think they, and surely many others, establish a precedent.(WT-en) Shep 08:49, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep all three. None of these articles violate what WT:Bodies of water was designed to combat—they are not encyclopedia articles about lakes themselves, rather they are destination articles, with plenty of overnight options. Bracciano and Bolsena each group the villages ringing a lake into one valid "city" article, akin to how we use a city template for small, inhabited islands. There are thousands of such lake-resort/lakeside community destinations around the world, many of them much smaller than Tahoe, and the majority of them deserving a travel article (like Lake Placid). Trasimeno seems clearly a valid region article, and I'm not sure that it conflicts with the existing hierarchy in any way. And even if it did overlap other regions at the same level of the hierarchy, that is allowed, and is very often a sensible way of organizing travel content. The Chesapeake Bay and Navajo Nation articles clearly overlap all sorts of regions, but it would not be sensible to omit such well-known and coherent travel destinations from Wikivoyage out of a desire to keep the geographical hierarchy more simple—a certain amount of complexity is necessary and IMO not a problem. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep - but review the region.

I disagree with much of the reasoning above for keeping the three lake articles.
 * 1) If the the reason for the bodies of water guideline is that we don't want encyclopaedic articles about bodies of water, it would be extremely simple to just put that in the guideline. There are many people who contributed to the guideline, and trying to assess their reasoning rather than following the text is the wrong way to proceed.  The text of the guideline is quite clear, and we should follow the guideline, or fix the guideline.
 * 2) I also don't agree that because there are other examples of a type of article, that we have established a precedent. There are lots of things that slip through the cracks for want of attention, and other articles which we just keep even though they are against policy (some just because they are good articles and useful to a traveller).  I don't think that means that a precedent is stronger than a policy or guideline.   We shouldn't let Wikivoyage documentation descend into unwritten policies, precedents, and conventions. If we think an article is good enough to establish a precedent, we should change the policy or guideline. To do anything else means that new users who want to follow the guidelines, don't have a clue where to look, and discussions here and elsewhere become excessively complex pointing to other examples, rather than building better guidelines.
 * 3) I don't think the fact that we allow regions that don't fit into the regional hierarchy, means that we should assume we keep regions that don't. Sure, we allow regions that don't fit into the hierarchy, but there should be a strong presumption against them rising to any more than just disamb articles. We should make new regions that don't form part of the hierarchy redirect/disamb articles, unless there really is additional information significant to the traveller that can't be sensibly placed anywhere other than the region.  I see bare and poorly developed regions are a significant problem on WT, and we shouldn't add to it by encouraging other full regional articles.  In this particular case, isn't clear whether the articles are going to end up as regional articles, containing towns, or city template based articles in themselves.

That said, this article seems to me to describe a land region named after the lake, rather than the lake itself, and Shep's arguments that it is a common name for the land region seem convincing to me. However, we should be careful that this article doesn't end up just a bare region. If this is a real grouping for a number of smaller towns, perhaps the towns themselves could be redirected to this region, if they all have something in common, and are close together? Or perhaps we could rethink the regional hierarchy in this area? If it is a clear region that the towns belong to, perhaps it should be part of the hierarchy? --(WT-en) inas 20:26, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Ian, your rebuttal is borderline incomprehensible to me. 1) If the text of the guideline is quite clear, then why were we having this discussion (where I made it clear that I disagree with your reading of the policy, for that matter). Anyway, I've updated the policy in a way that will hopefully make more sense. 2) The examples I cited are hardly articles that slipped through the cracks, they are examples that should make it obvious that we should have destination guides named after lakes, provided (as the policy has always said), they are about the land destination surrounding the lake, rather than the water itself. 3) I have no idea why there should be a strong presumption against region articles just because they are not a part of our hierarchy, which exists for navigational purposes. If a region is a valid travel region, we travelers a disservice to arbitrarily refuse to write travel content about it. Moreover, bare and poorly developed articles are far more likely for regions created out of navigational convenience (like Northern X) than something coherent like a specific resort lake. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the Italian lakes in question to be able to comment on the specifics, but I just wanted to chime in my support for Peter's interpretation of the policy. If a lake is a sensible destination/region -- and the pattern of having small communities dotted around a lake surrounded by mountains is quite common -- then there's no reason why the lake should not be a destination/region. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Agree much with Inas. For me the bodies of water policy reads that, if at all possible, we avoid having articles about them, instead preferring to redirect. Yes we know there are exceptions to the bodies of water guideline out there, but they all either have reasons to be exceptions, or they need to be re-examined. The ones already mentioned seem to have valid reasons:
 * Lake Placid is the name of the town, so is actually not an exception at all.
 * Loch Lomond is a hierarchically valid subregion article of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park
 * Lake Louise is very remote with no logical nearest town to direct to, yet is a popular destination with its own places to sleep.
 * Lake Garda is a very large lake which borders three provinces, has attractions around it, but no single community big enough to warrant an article, so no logical place to redirect or disambiguate. This is the treat-all-the-villages-as-one-city example that Peter was looking for.
 * Since even our geographical hierachy states that exceptions need to be made on a case by case basis let's look at the three at hand:
 * Lake Bolsena - Has two town articles (Montefiascone and Latera which is no further away but not mentioned in the current article). Has one town, Bolsena which could probably do with its own article, having a castle, a cathedral with an interesting story, a theater, and several dozen restaurants and places to sleep. Has one small village worth mentioning in the Get out section of nearby Montefiascone because it has a castle and provides access to a small island. I don't see any information that wouldn't fit nicely into another article, given a disambig page, so I don't see any reason to make this an exception from current body of water policy on the basis of anything other than possibly naming a subregion after this lake. On that point, the question as to whether this article should stand as a valid region article can be answered by asking "Can (and should) the province of Viterbo be subdivided into regions, and would this be a logical component of that subdivision without causing overlap?"
 * Lake Bracciano - Currently has no articles of cities around the lake, but Bracciano is a city of 15,500, well deserving of an article, and we can redirect there. We can put info about enjoying the lake in the new city article, with the much smaller Anguillara Sabazia and Trevignano Romano covered briefly in the Get out section. Again, I see no reason we can't follow the disambig and redirect guideline. If, as above, we decide that subdividing Viterbo is necessary, this could possibly make a logical region with no overlap, though I'm not sure it would contain anything at all besides the aforementioned city article.
 * Lake Trasimeno could very well be a valid region article at some point. However, right now Umbria is not subdivided into regions, so, as in cases where someone creates a lone district article for an otherwise undivided city, I think it needs to be nothing but a disambig page, at least until such time as someone justifies and proposes subdistricting. The current article contains nothing but links to cities anyway, and is essentially already the disambig page I would have it be, except that it has a region template.
 * To respond to Peter's position about overlap, I agree that a little overlap doesn't hurt sometimes, but our guidelines still encourage us to avoid it when possible. So far the few exceptions we have made have been on a very case-by-case basis, sometimes hotly contested, and only about very large and famous regions which cross multiple macro-regions or countries. Many of the exceptions we have made have resulted in what are basically glorified disambig pages with little extra information. I really think what you are proposing is a slippery slope. If we start making exceptions for any little ol' lake with a couple of villages on it, we undermine both the bodies of water policy and the geographical hierarchy guidelines, and we'll end up with hundreds of new lake articles that overlap, confuse breadcrumb navigation, contain little information that couldn't be included elsewhere, and invite further rule-stretching to include rivers, etc. I get the feeling that you essentially disagree with the bodies of water policy, which is your right and we can of course discuss in the appropriate place and possibly make some changes. But as Inas said, the current policy is pretty clear on avoiding such articles if at all possible. In the above cases, I think it is very easy to avoid. (WT-en) Texugo 00:29, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Lake Bolsena: I'm least sure of this one, but WP lists seven comuni on the shores of the lake, so it should be a fine region article. Lake Bracciano is small, as are the communities around it, which is why Shep recommended they be covered within one article. I haven't been there, so I'm happy to trust his judgment—and I certainly don't see a compelling reason not to (other than some arbitrary discrimination against articles with the word "lake" in the title?). Lake Trasimeno is a valid region article already, and is not suggested as a region in a subdivision of Umbria, nor should it be, as it would only be listed as an other destination on whatever parent region article. It's clearly a travel destination, and I'm baffled as to how this undermines the geographical hierarchy, confuses breadcrumb information, or otherwise creates any problems of overlap. It's a coherent travel destination, it can sustain a good travel article, and travelers heading there would be well served by an article for the lake region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Wow! If I had known that writing for Wikivoyage was going to lead to so much debate I'd have read a good book instead. Anyway, I am happy to go along with the consensus, if there is one.(WT-en) Shep 13:43, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
 * This is a debate we had to have - because the relationship between wikivoyage and bodies of water has always been odd, and it is good to see the points of view come out. Please don't feel you have to wait on the sideline for a consensus, a new opinion I'm sure would be valued by all.  Hopefully we can get a better guideline as a result.  --(WT-en) inas 19:09, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I wrote the two lake articles thinking that it was a logical way to present the locations in the area. I'm trying to increase coverage of Lazio and as I noted above most places around the lakes do not really merit an article on their own. But I do think Wikivoyage should avoid articles such as the present one on Lake Trasimeno, which is not much help to anyone, with no information and listings of cities that have no articles!(WT-en) Shep 01:06, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
 * This discussion is currently on hold because it sparked a larger discussion here. Please chime in there. (WT-en) Texugo 01:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: Keep. No consensus for deletion.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Peach Bottom
Village under 4500 people. Practically everything mentioned here is in Lancaster, 30 minutes away. It is explicitly stated that there is no place to stay, no place to eat, nothing to see, nothing to do, and there is only one very vague Buy suggestion that is basically universal to the region.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 21:38, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

The only reason I made this page was because it was a project for Introduction to Tourism and Hospitality Class. We had to chose a place and make a site and I figured no one has ever really heard of Peach Bottom so I figured I would just pick that. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Sarah.Osborne (talk • contribs)
 * Merge then delete If there is anything that is not already on the Lancaster page, then I'd suggest merging first. If not, just delete it. It has a nice name, though. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:50, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Merge & redirect. The name is nice; someone might search for it. (WT-en) Pashley 13:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Merge and redirect. Agree with Pashley (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 15:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
 * It's not your fault; your teacher should have made sure your assignment was in line with our policies before letting you guys loose here. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:33, 13 November 2009 (EST)
 * I think we might need a Welcome, students page. (WT-en) Pashley 00:38, 22 November 2009 (EST)

 * I think that is a very good idea. Clearly Wikivoyage is finding itself on more and more student assignment lists. Perhaps we need a Welcome teachers page as well? If nothing else, we should try to make sure that teachers do not irresponsibly set their students loose here without understanding the site themselves. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:18, 22 November 2009 (EST)

 * Result: Tag for merge to Lancaster (Pennsylvania). (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Pakistani students coming to Finland
Not sure any explanation is required. Speedy I think. Apart from anything else it has been set up as a disambiguation page. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I do not think it can be speedied. There is at least one valid travel topic that is very close to this. Perhaps "Foreign students in Europe" or "Studying abroad"? I'm not sure of the exact right title or scope. but studying — especially students from "developing" countries going to "developed" countries — is a huge reason for travel. Better to re-name and generalise the article than to scrap it. Some of the advice here, like get a driver's license at home because converting it is cheaper than getting one in the host country, can be useful and is not obvious. (WT-en) Pashley 22:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd say it should be changed to Studying in Finland. "Foreign students in Europe" is likely to be too broad a topic, and the current title is too narrow. I certainly don't think there are enough differences to warrant having a separate topic each for Turkish students coming to Finland, Jordanian students coming to Finland, Iranian students coming to..., and every other country... (WT-en) Texugo 22:39, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, but then do we get Studying in Finland, Studying in Germany, Studying in France, Studying in the UK, ... ? (WT-en) Pashley 23:04, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Studying in Finland makes sense. Anything more specific than that then a can of worms is well and truly opened with thousands of permutations. Also, I must say that it had not occurred to me that students formally moving overseas to study would look to Wikivoyage for logistical advice; hence my suggestion for speedy. There are surely far more appropriate places? Do we really think that students will use Wikivoyage as a source of such advice?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:06, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Business travel and studying overseas (all those Learn sections) are well-established reasons to use Wikivoyage. I agree that the original article is kinda ridiculous, but wouldn't oppose a Studying in Finland article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:52, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

 * We might, Pashley, if there is information to impart that would not fit comfortably into a Learn section. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:01, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Rewrite is needed to fit the Studying in Finland proposal. The current article is not really helpful and more a list of commonplaces. I suggest we redirect first and then see how the article develops. (WT-en) jan 09:15, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd prefer a single Studying abroad article with the suggestion of looking at the "Learn" section of destination articles. We don't have "Working in Finland", Working in Thailand", etc., just Working abroad and the Work sections of destinations. I think the same applies here. (WT-en) Pashley 01:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * How about starting things off with a Studying abroad article, and letting it expand from there? The original looks like it may have been written by a Pakistani student now in Finland, who found these things out the hard way and wants to help. This is good in principle, unless Wikivoyage is going to limit the scope of its content to exclude this sort of information. If there is not an issue of space, why not provide this service? Those hints look moderately useful to someone with no travelling experience planning to go to a very different climate and culture. The format will probably have to differ from the norm to make sense, but as a possibility, consider a main article Studying abroad, with sub-articles for region specific hints like Studying abroad/Pakistani in Finland if/when there is enough content to justify the split. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Merge and redirect to Studying abroad (see above) (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I like the idea of starting off with a Study Abroad article and splitting as it expands. I think that's much more reasonable than beginning with a random Studying abroad in Finland article that will be likely to fall into obscurity, since there really isn't any place right now to link to it. It would just be a floater. Having an established Study Abroad page would provide a base for creating more specific articles relating to study abroad. If the information here is decent information, perhaps it could be moved to the the Talk Page of the study abroad article once it is created. That way we wouldn't lose content. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Only problem is, I'm not sure there's all that much to say about studying abroad in general? The Pakistani guy studying in Finland is going to be facing a very different set of hurdles from the Finnish guy studying in Japan... (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: Tag for merge to Studying abroad. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Saratoga County
Looking at the New York regional structure, a county article is not really appropriate. There is already a reasonably developed Saratoga Springs article so if anything, maybe a redirect there? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 13:08, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep. The regions of New York are not, themselves, well-divided into subregions.  Counties seem to be the default option until someone comes up with a better organization.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:59, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Hudson Valley. It's a problematic county, as it is split across two parent regions. But more importantly it's not yet necessary, nothing links there, nor does it have any content. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:11, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
 * As you say, it's split across two parent regions, so why redirect to one? (WT-en) LtPowers 16:21, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
 * There's almost nothing northwest of the park border (to this we owe the beautiful views from Saratoga Springs!). I'm pretty sure miniscule Corinth is all there is—everything else is on the Hudson Valley side. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep and disambiguate or redirect - I am not sure why there is such an aversion to creating US counties but to me it would seem reasonable to have county pages, simply because Wikipedia has them and there is a risk that someone will link to Wikivoyage and expect to find a county organised the same way. It could be a disambiguation page at this stage that points to all the places you want to redirect it to. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:22, 3 November 2009 (EST)
 * Result: Keep. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Kattoor kerala
No useful info, wrong title format, wrong capitalisation. We might eventually want an article for Kattoor, which WP lists [1]. (WT-en) Pashley 00:40, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I think the solution is obvious. Move to Kattoor, add an outline template, wikilink to the Wikipedia article and keep it. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:28, 3 November 2009 (EST)
 * Result: Move to Kattoor. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Tollesbury
Seems like a load of bull to me --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:38, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

 * a point or two for humour (vibrant night life in Tollesbury is an amusing concept). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:48, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Blank and Outline.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:33, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep and add a destination template. It is probably worth a mention as a destination in Essex, so that it is no longer an orphan page. Then again the vibrant nightlife reminds me of Peter Sellers Belham with its beautigul flashing lights - green - orange - red and back to green again! - (WT-en) Huttite 06:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)
 * Result: Keep. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

False Bay
Body of water, not a destination. One does not go to "False Bay" as such, one goes to the destinations on its coast specified by name. Most are part of Cape Town, but some are not, making a redirect inappropriate.
 * Merge and delete (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:12, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Redirect Keep. As a real geographical place, it should be redirected, rather than deleted, per Project:Deletion_policy. A casual Google/Wikipedia search didn't answer the question of to where, though. If it's inhabited, then perhaps to the appropriate region article? If it's not, then maybe even to Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Scratch that, should have looked at it first. It's a valid region article, and is about the cities in the bay area, not the water itself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * This article should be kept and updated. False Bay is the marina destination which makes all the surrounding cities of the bay relevant.  False Bay is one of the better destinations in the West Cape for water activities and viewing of marine animals. --(WT-en) Daniel Talk 02:29, 10 January2010 (EDT)

 * Result: Keep. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Atlantic Seaboard
Not a useful name. So many places have an Atlantic seaboard that disambiguation is not an option
 * Merge and delete (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:22, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep — ditto what I said above. If there is a naming conflict with other articles, then it can be disambiguated. Or if you have a better name in mind, we can use that. But otherwise this seems a perfectly valid region article and subdivision of Cape Peninsula. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:31, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * So, is this one just going to have links to countries in South America, North America, Africa, and Europe that touch the Atlantic Ocean? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:37, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * There's no need to disambiguate yet, as there is only one article. And no, that would be a pointless disambig—it would only need to disambiguate region articles that actually bear that name. Mid-Atlantic is a similar case. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: Keep. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Category:위키트래벌
Now that has been launched, it's time to delete the articles in Category:위키트래벌. Deletions can be done speedily after it's confirmed that they've been transwikied (= check if English original has a link to ko and whether the article is there). (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:08, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Isn't this a bit premature? It might be better to explain what to do about these article as part of the expedition, rather than simply VfD the the whole category here. Perhaps VfD later once we are certain the articles have all been created in . - (WT-en) Huttite 06:50, 3 November 2009 (EST)

 * Delete All Korean, it's bogus translated and unusable. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 14:49, 8 November 2009 (EST)

 * Result: All deleted except Korean phrasebook for obvious reasons. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Phrasebook International
Getting rid of this has been discussed before; see its discussion page and User talk:DenisYurkin. I thought it time to broaden the discussion.

It seems to me the basic premise that there's some sort of "international language" (words or phrases likely to be understood more-or-less anywhere) to be documented is just wrong. Given that, I do not think the article is salvageable, or at least not under this title. On the other hand, could we move it to Tips for coping with language problems or some such? Certainly this is a problem many travelers face; that's a valid travel topic and parts of this article might be a good start. (WT-en) Pashley 08:36, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

 * What sections/aspects could an article like Tips for coping with language problems include? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:29, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
 * I mean that if there's any idea of what this article better become a part of, why vfding it at all--why not start with an outline of such a more-general article? I absolutely admit that it's impossible to have a complete phrasebook (complete in the sense we have other phrasebooks here)--and this article was never considered for that goal--. Yes, it's a helper in communicating when you can't find a common language--so if it's only a matter of renaming, let's just do it. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I like this idea better. An international phrasebook is too limiting, I think, because there is no such thing as an international language (although people like to say that English is the international language). Tips for getting through language issues seems easier to add to, as well as to forgive things that apply to many places but not everywhere. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:16, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete though Jani's idea of a sign language phrasebooks seems good if someone can come up with an idea on how to make it work, I learned booking whole railway tickets in China (before mass tourism arrived) using nothing but sign language and a LP guide (city names in Chinese) - See the talk page —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Sertmann (talk • contribs).

 * Keep. I think it's useful to have a list of English words that are likely to be widely understood.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:33, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Based on discussion at Project:Travellers'_pub, I've started a Talk article using some, but by no means all, text from this one. (WT-en) Pashley 21:23, 22 December 2009 (EST)

 * Now that we have Talk, I think this should be a Redirect. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:49, 8 February 2010 (EST)

 * Result: Redirect to Talk. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Ezhimala
This page was tagged as a VfD candidate about a year ago, but there is no record of the user adding it here to discuss. So I will add it here to discuss. However, I would prefer to merge with and redirect to Kannur, since it appears as an attraction there, but wondered if there was any better alternative that anyone could think of. The content is probably of little value, possibly a copyvio... - (WT-en) Huttite 08:38, 18 January 2010 (EST)

 * Seems like a copyvio, so just redirect and lose all information. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:34, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Redirect. Agreed, copyvio. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:25, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Outcome: redirected to Kannur. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:25, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

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


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2011

Images from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Brilinger

 * Image:Krabi 250.jpg
 * Image:Krabi 264.jpg
 * Image:Krabi 273.jpg

 * Delete. These are all orphaned images that were uploaded to promote a specific guesthouse, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Krabi ccl.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a specific hotel, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Kriss.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided.  The image description page is an advertisement for a trekking company, something we typically discourage.  A now-removed URL on the image description page shows up in the spam blacklist. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Look at me.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Map colombia.gif

 * Delete. Orphaned map image with no indication of source, license, etc.  We already have Image:Colombia regions map.png, so I can't see any reason why an unused, questionably-licensed map needs to be kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Map PeninsularMalaysia.png

 * Delete. Unused map that has been superseded by Image:Malaysia regions map.png. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Map Bird Park.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned map image.  There is no indication provided that the original (commercial) map that this is based on can be re-used under a CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Map of Armidale.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned map image with no indication of source, and it is too small to be of any usefulness anyhow. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Images from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Tinetan

 * Image:OE BRANDS.jpg
 * Image:OE TOUR.jpg

 * Delete. These are both orphaned images that were uploaded to promote a specific jewelry store, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Only for ad.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided.  Uploaded to promote a tour guide service. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Photo 77.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Photo lg india.jpg

 * Delete. This is an orphaned commercial image advertising a travel agency in India. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Photo01.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release, uploaded to promote a tour company. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Pict0015-1-.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a specific tour company, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Pic.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable person with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Picture 050 (Small).jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a specific tour company, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Image:Picture018.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable person with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Zaouia d'Ifrane
A village of 2,000 only 2 miles from Ifrane (despite what the article now says, every map I can find shows it to be 2 miles WNW of Ifrane). Doesn't seem to have it's own lodgings. Small enough that it doesn't even have a mention on Wikipedia.
 * Redirect to Ifrane - (WT-en) Texugo 09:27, 19 January 2011 (EST)

This is a different Zaouia d'Ifrane. The proper name is Zaouiate Oued Ifrane, but nobody actually calls it that, but i guess i will change the title of the town to that since I am about to be deleted and i just started! I live in this village, I am a Peace Corps volunteer trying to promote eco-tourism to this village so please don't delete it! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 41.140.138.136 (talk • contribs)
 * I see. OK, so, a village of 500-1000 people? French Wikipedia has very little information and Yahoo Maps points to an unlabeled spot with no roads visible, and both refer to it as only Oued Ifrane. Does it have accommodations? restaurants? If there are things to see, don't you think it's better to describe them than to just say "you'll know when you get there"? (Who is going to decide to go to a place based on that kind of recommendation?) (WT-en) Texugo 11:05, 19 January 2011 (EST)

 * Hold, It has a Sleep section with a place to stay. Give the person a chance to make it worth keeping. Say a month? (negotiable) • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:35, 20 January 2011 (EST)
 * No problem with that. It's not the place I was actually vfd'ing, and has been subsequently renamed.(WT-en) Texugo 10:06, 20 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Zaouiate Oued Ifrane. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:43, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

Hanoi Free Tour Guides

 * Delete. Purely advertising for the organization, not a travel guide at all. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:20, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Speedied - (WT-en) texugo 09:23, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:19, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Pepsi

 * Delete. A joke topic about Pepsi. (WT-en) Gineer 17:17, 18 March 2011 (EDT) (talk)
 * Speedy deleted'. (WT-en) Pashley 20:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:19, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Ramsis Aleppo1.jpg
Uploaded locally, violates the policy of photos of businesses.
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 21:36, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:17, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Ramsis Aleppo.jpg
Uploaded locally, violates the policy of photos of businesses.
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 21:36, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:17, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Ningrat Limo Bike (pas Photo).jpg and Image:Ningrat Limo Bike (pas photo).jpg

 * Delete. These are the same image.  Both are orphaned, and at 29x19 they are far too small to ever be of any use. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

 * Delete both - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Upload.jpg

 * Delete. This is a larger version of Image:Ningrat Limo Bike (pas Photo).jpg.  It is currently orphaned, and was uploaded to promote a business in Jakarta, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:2CV.jpg and Image:Parisauthentic's fleet.jpg

 * Delete. These are the same image, both orphaned, and both uploaded to promote a tour company in Paris, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete both - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Picture.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Picture.mani..jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Poster7655.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned poster for a Dominican rap album. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Private-bali-villa.jpg and Image:Op1-imgindex.jpg

 * Delete. These are the same image (minus a logo), and both are orphaned collages promoting a villa in Bali, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Provajournal1.jpg

 * Delete. I'm not sure what this image is supposed to be, but it's orphaned and doesn't appear travel-related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Reception-1-.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned hotel advertisement, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Reegan.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Ria.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Nhtoura.jpg and Image:Nhtour.jpg

 * Delete. These are more-or-less the same image, and both are orphaned logos promoting a tour companyi, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Images uploaded by Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Indergi

 * Image:Room 33.jpg
 * Image:Ajanta02.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned images of a hotel, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Images uploaded by Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Shaji

 * Image:Rooms.png
 * Image:Sanctuary.png

 * Delete. Orphaned images of a hotel, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Rugby Grille.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a restaurant interior, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Images uploaded by Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Vismay

 * Image:S1.jpg
 * Image:Cameragialla.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned images of a hotel, something discouraged by Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:S1419082294 306128 5117222.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image, apparently (based on the image page) uploaded as an advertisement for a travel agency. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:S6000926.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:S73F0567.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image that appears to be some sort of album advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:STURDY.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned thumbnail (91x69) of a rusting car.  I assume that this may have just been uploaded as a test? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Saucy.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:Scan0025.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image.  It's a scanned black & white photo uploaded as "PD-Self", which seems questionable.  Without any further identification as to where this came from it's probably best to delete rather than risk a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:ScannedImage-2.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a family dinner, recognizable people with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:ScannedImage.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release.  Appears to have been uploaded to promote a hostel, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Image:ScannedImage-3.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

A Weekend On Block Island
This claims to be an itinerary but it is not. It adds nothing that cannot be merged with the existing article on Block Island. (WT-en) Shep 13:23, 8 March 2011 (EST)

 * I agree. It should be merged; I doubt there could be a compelling argument advanced to keep the two articles separate. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 22:47, 9 March 2011 (EST)

 * Merge and delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Block Island. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Itinerary: A Day Out In Lincoln, RI
Not an itinerary. More a plug for the Courtyard Marriott. (WT-en) Shep 13:44, 8 March 2011 (EST)

 * I agree and vote for deletion. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 22:49, 9 March 2011 (EST)

Merge the information in Understand and Get Out into Lincoln (Rhode Island). (WT-en) –sumone10154 22:39, 10 March 2011 (EST)

 * Merge and delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Lincoln (Rhode Island). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

A Weekend in Downtown Providence
same contributor as the two above. Adds nothing. (WT-en) Shep 14:04, 8 March 2011 (EST)
 * Merge or Delete if there is no new stuff to merge. (WT-en) texugo 20:29, 9 March 2011 (EST)
 * Delete. This isn't an itinerary, it's just a bunch of listings with slightly modified section headers.  I find it unlikely that a visitor will stay at nine different hotels over the course of a weekend.  -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 20:57, 9 March 2011 (EST)
 * Merge into Providence. (WT-en) –sumone10154 22:35, 10 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Providence. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Itinerary: A weekend in the Soo
Ditto. (WT-en) Shep 14:08, 8 March 2011 (EST)

 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Isha Yoga Centre
I admit this user is putting a lot of work and some nice prose into this, and yes it does pass the sleep test, but... It is still a privately owned resort of no historical interest, really just an attraction with some cottages. How is this different from Xelha or any other privately owned resort that we delete, except that it's yoga instead of another tourist activity?
 * Merge and delete - (WT-en) Texugo 05:55, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * I thought of elaborating on the topic in Coimbatore but I took into consideration three factors: One, that it lies about 30 km from and well outside the boundaries of the nearest major town. Two, that a lot of people do visit this place - not just from Coimbatore but from various parts of India and the world. Three, that there are a lot of activities to do at the destination, a traveler could dedicate 2-3 days to this place. So adding all the information such as See & Do, Stay, Etiquette etc would just look too cumbersome in the Coimbatore page. BTW as the creator of the article, do I also get to vote or is my vote obvious? Thnx. (WT-en) Regstuff 06:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * You are of course welcome to comment here. I just want to hold this up against established policy and practice because I don't think it's a good fit. We have eliminated articles for other private resorts, despite them having a variety of activities or tourists who spend 2 or 3 days there. The info you have provided is well-written, but it is a great deal more detailed than we usually provide-- that's what the link to the official website is for. (WT-en) Texugo 06:29, 30 January 2011 (EST)

 * It seems odd to merge it into an article that's 35 km (22 miles) away, especially since the content that is here would overwhelm the Coimbatore article. It appears to be a destination in its own right to me.  Is there an example of the level of detail that you deem too much for our site?  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * I dunno, a map and a walk-around guide of the small complex with its 3 main buildings, a play-by-play of all the goings-on at all two temples plus detailed aesthetic descriptions of them (remember these are recent structures, not historically significant), the two temples dominate both See and Do... It seems a bit much to me. At any rate, the more important issue for me is that it is a privately-owned resort, as are Xcaret and Xelha and others that we have (rightfully, I think) deleted in the past, the only difference being that it is for relaxation and yoga instead of tourism and swimming with dolphins. Do we give it a pass just because it's yoga? just because it's 30km from the nearest article (Xel-ha is perhaps a bit further even from the article in which it is described). How do we justify giving this one an article? -- (WT-en) Texugo 21:05, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * There is no policy demanding the deletion of privately-owned resorts, nor do I understand in the least why we would want such a policy. We have six star articles that are collectively, exclusively about a single privately-owned resort destination.  I'm working on another article about a privately-owned resort now: Darien Lake.
 * I do understand your concerns about level of detail, and it probably could be pared down a bit. But I don't think a merge is the answer.  It doesn't seem like people visit this resort as part of a trip to Coimbatore; they specifically take a trip to the resort.  The fact that there's nothing else nearby is not the fault of the resort.  It's not unlike a hotel and restaurant out in the middle of nowhere here in the U.S. -- putting it in the article of a town twenty miles away feels insufficient, and has every time that this issue has come up.  My feeling is, if there's a place to sleep and a place to eat, and it's not part of some other municipality, we might as well have an article on it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:34, 31 January 2011 (EST)

"keep!" this is not just some private resort. Isha Yoga Center gets millions of visitors each year. There are some events which attract 100,000 participants in a day. Keep it! You have an article about the Playboy Mansion, which is private. —The preceding comment was added by 24.7.91.234 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. While I'm no expert on yogic retreats, this seems to be a nice little article, and seems to have all the things we look for in destination guides (sights, food, lodging, etc.). And it's created by a clearly talented new contributor who has even created a WT-style map for the article! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:07, 31 January 2011 (EST)
 * Keep. I'm planning to go to the Isha Center later this year and have found this information most helpful - I don't know where else I could access some of these specifics that will help me plan my travel so I am very grateful for this. There is some duplication in the article that could be paired down and I suspect the author could include links to other sites where some of this material is discussed at length. One important point to consider is that this is NOT a private resort. Based on my understanding the Isha Center is open to the public and hosts many events throughout the year to which the public is warmly invited.  (WT-en) Rebecca Reynolds 00:43, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Hi Rebecca. Just wanted to mention that I elaborated and went into such detail because I thought that all the valid information should be available on a single page so the traveler could just print-out the wikivoyage guide and set off. And the manual of style recommended that external links be kept to a bare minimum, which is why I avoided them. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Regstuff (talk • contribs)
 * You're absolutely right about the external links. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:40, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Thanks for your responses, I stand corrected, as I said I am grateful for this information and appreciate how easy it is to locate with Wiki, my first destination search site. (WT-en) Rebecca Reynolds 13:28, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Um... No, we don't have an article about that. you're confusing us with Wikipedia perhaps. (WT-en) Texugo 12:17, 1 February 2011 (EST)

Does anyone else find it extremely suspicious that we would get five "keep" responses from five different people, none of whom have ever contributed to Wikivoyage before, but all of whom have knowledge of this not-so-well-known place and all of whom have managed to happen upon the vfd page to make their first contribution?. (WT-en) texugo 22:53, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 * Erm,Keep, this is a tricky one. It seems like a very nice article, but one which sets a dangerous precedent, especially for a destination in India, where i'm less inclined to deviate from any policy, since we already have anarchy ruling on Wikivoyages own Indian micro cosmos. I say keep, but I just want to go on record and say I have a feeling this will spell trouble with persistent Indian resort/hill station owners down the line. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:05, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Merge and delete As Stefan explained this article sets a dangerous path for all indian yoga shrines. If we keep this article we will face creation of hundreds of similiar articles. India is already one of our most touted countries and its already today hard to control. I fear that touts like in Rishikesh will take over and therefore oppose this precedent. (WT-en) jan 03:04, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 * Keep. Velangiri Biosphere is an important geographical location within India located in South. They rival the spiritual and sporting charm and romance of the Himalayas.  Isha Center happens to be one of the places from where to experience the Southern Kailash, as the Velangiris are known in India.--(WT-en) Classictoad 23:01, 6 February 2011 (EST)
 * Keep. One of the things that distinguishes this Ashram is that it also has a Rejuvenation Center which I visited in Aug-Sep 2010. This seems to be an important feature that should be mentioned in this listing as it attracts visitors with an array of medical issues which are addressed at the Rejuvenation Center.--(WT-en) mkh 19:29, 7 February 2011 (EST)
 * Keep.I was looking for more info on this yoga center and I found the information really useful. I don't understand why would we want to delete this. The whole point of wikivoyages is to provide this kind of information to folks searching the net. Please keep this. —The preceding comment was added by 99.59.229.175 (talk • contribs)
 * Considering there's a notice at the top of the page in question, I don't think it's so odd for someone to find their way to this page. Maybe the page is more popular than we thought.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:00, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 * I agree with Texugo; I don't think this place seems to be that popular. (WT-en) –sumone10154 12:06, 11 February 2011 (EST)

 * Keep. While this doesn't meet the standard Project:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:05, 18 February 2011 (EST)
 * Any further comment? This nomination has been open for a while so it's time to get it resolved - I'm not sure that there is a consensus, but there are enough reasons & votes to keep it that I would lean towards resolving it that way. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep - Great travel destination for enlightment. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 173.48.130.208 (talk • contribs)

 * Reluctant Keep I really wonder if this place could not be summed up in a single listing in a city article however, for now, I'll go with Ryan. I do agree with Peter though that this could lead to a slippery slope, since our Indian articles are usually very spammy, touty, etc. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:55, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

 * I am still of the opinion that 5-6 of the above "keeps" are a person or persons involved in doing that kind of touting in the first place. (WT-en) texugo 09:17, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:26, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Historical tour of northern Southeast Asia

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since February 2009, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:50, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:33, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

German Wine Route

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since February 2006, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:08, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:33, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

ATV the Arapeen Trail System

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since July 2009, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Snowmobile Skyline Drive

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since October 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Walk to Vincennes

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since April 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. This was started upon a couple of suggestions here, but now that all of the information it has to offer (e.g., Promenade Plantée, and the metro lines) has been covered by a district article, it could be safely deleted. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:01, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:07, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

State Highway 1 (New Zealand)

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:14, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Great Central Road

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:42, 30 March 2011 (EDT)