text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2006

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/November 2006 or Project:Votes for deletion/January 2007 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Equator
Can't think of any basis on which this might meet the Project:What is an article? guidelines or qualify as a valid exception. ~ 61.91.191.11 11:42, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:36, 3 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete, not a destination. (WT-en) Hypatia 06:03, 17 November 2006 (EST)
 * Certainly not a destination, but I wonder if there's any way to make an itinerary out of it? Not with the current content, obviously, but that can be replaced. Nah ... delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:39, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Center parcs
Doesn't fall within the scope of Project:What is an article? and redirecting it to Hotels or Travel accommodation seems too tenuous. ~ 61.91.191.11 09:21, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:40, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Koelner_Dom_und_Bruecke.jpg
I'm not sure what the license of this image is and I can't find it on the DE Wikipedia like the uploader suggested. I checked the other site that the image can supposedly be found on but after a quick browse (ten minutes) I still didn't come up with this exact image. Delete to be safe. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:18, 3 December 2006 (EST)
 * Bump. I did make one request for German Wikipedians with sysop status to check out if and why the image was deleted off of DE Wikipedia. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:19, 3 December 2006 (EST)

 * Bump. Here's what I asked a "Bürokrat" followed by a translation contained within parentheses:

 * ''Hallo,

 * Ich bin Sapphire, ein Benutzer auf Wikivoyage. Können Sie erklären warum  dieses Foto gelöscht wurde?  Vielen Dank! -- 71.72.212.152 01:35, 4. Dez. 2006 (CET)

 * (Hello, I'm Sapphire, a Wikivoyager. Could you please explain why this image was deleted?  Thanks!)

 * Das Bild wurde gelöscht, weil es von Pixelquelle kommt. Siehe Wikipedia:Bilder_von_pixelquelle.de. In der Lizenz von Pixelquelle steht, dass die Bilder nicht in eine Bilddatenbank hochgeladen werden darf. Das steht unser Lizenz hier entgegen, die jede Nutzung unter GFDL erlaubt. Das gelöschte Bild ist also nicht wirklich PDublic Domain gewesen. -- sk 10:15, 4. Dez. 2006 (CET)

 * (The photo was deleted because it came from Pixelquelle. See Wikipedia:Bilder_von_pixelquelle.de.  The license from Pixelquelle says that the images may not be uploaded to image depositories (or data banks).  That condricts our (WP) license which permits use under GFDL.  The deleted image was thus not public domain.) -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 09:08, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy delete

Image:Mani.jpg
Delete. Picture of someone - doesn't feature on a userpage. -- (WT-en) Tim 20:02, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Tourism Board

 * Delete. I don't think this meets Project:What is an article? criteria, and the current article is basically just an empty huge city template. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:13, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Image:VodkaBar.JPG

 * Delete. Contravenes Project:Image_policy - adds nothing to the article, no model release statement. -- (WT-en) Tim 18:43, 24 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. It could be salvaged by cropping or blurring the faces, but doesn't add that much to the article anyway. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 8 December 2006 (EST)

The Americas

 * Delete. An article created seemingly solely for the purpose of allowing North & South America to be "isIn" something.  I'd fear that an article like this one opens the door for "Northern Hemisphere" and other such articles, which really aren't of much use to a traveler. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:13, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete I agree, this is not needed and does not really help the traveler. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:21, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:46, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Caldwell

 * Delete, no info about what or where this is. (WT-en) Xania 11:05, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted. There is a well-established precedent for deleting articles created for the purpose of trolling. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:10, 9 December 2006 (EST)

The Americas

 * Delete. An article created seemingly solely for the purpose of allowing North & South America to be "isIn" something.  I'd fear that an article like this one opens the door for "Northern Hemisphere" and other such articles, which really aren't of much use to a traveler. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:13, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete I agree, this is not needed and does not really help the traveler. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:21, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted by Bill-on-the-Hill. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 22:06, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Dalian map.png
Another month, another request from me for a file I uploaded (that's also on shared) to be speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Paul. 08:31, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted per policy on images now on WT Shared. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:15, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Thousand Trails

 * Delete This is an article on a campground that has locations in 16 states and British Columbia. Does not meet are needs for an article and information about the campground should be added to individual articles. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:42, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. One of the explicit non-goals is that Wikivoyage does not want to become a yellow pages or web directory, and creating an article for a specific campground company pushes the site in that direction. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:08, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Gdl-catedral.jpg
Author and source not specified. -- (WT-en) Peraltita 12:59, 15 November 2006 (EST)
 * This is an excellent photo, however, and I've been unable to find it elsewhere on the net, despite a fair bit of searching. Is there a way to e-mail the uploader directly to clarify copyright status?  This one is worth going the extra mile before it's deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * I have contacted the user. Below is the message.Hello, I am contacting you because your image has been nominated for deletion due to failure to produce copyright status, however, we really want to keep your image on Wikivoyage. Would you please clarify the copyright status of Image:Gdl-catedral.jpg? We need to know who owns the image and copyright and if the image is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 (Full text of CC-by-SA 1.0). -- Peraltita 12:50, 15 November 2006 (EST) You can see this image and more links at your user discussion page at: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/User_talk:Tizforint Sincerely, Wikivoyageer Peraltita -- Peraltita 22:44, 3 December 2006 (EST)
 * Hooray, user updated information. Picture saved!
 * Satisfies me. I'll move this to the archive later today, unless someone sees a reason not to. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:06, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:46, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Image:KY Oaks Mall RWC Job.jpg
An image advertising for Rob's Window Cleaning. Plus, it's not particularly illustrative. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 16:02, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy delete on all sorts of grounds. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:50, 12 December 2006 (EST)

LAN Airlines

 * Delete We don't do pages for airlines. Only content is a single link. Anyone think of a redirect? (WT-en) Maj 14:37, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete this, but we have several pages like Discount airlines in Asia or other continents. Should LAN be linked in one of them? Or shouls we start a new one for Latin America and put it there? (WT-en) Pashley 19:46, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:03, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Camps_in_the_Kruger_National_Park
Delete - Not an article. Just a list of the camps that are in Kruger National Park, which should be (and is) contained in Kruger National Park. -- (WT-en) Tim 18:48, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:46, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * On looking more at this, I'm still in favor of a delete, but there is actually some information here, notably some contact info, that should be transferred to the main article before this one is deleted. Suggest holding off on the actual delete until that stuff is moved. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:31, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * The contact info is just phone numbers (from sanparks) that I added before noticing that this page is a total waste of space. I have now updated Kruger_National_Park with the same information. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:51, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. No point duplicating data. (WT-en) Xania 20:51, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. No need for it. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 06:30, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome:Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:27, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Salt Cathedral

 * A bar, not a destination. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete As above. (WT-en) Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:57, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Paper travel guides

 * Delete. We're writing open source travel guides here. They're intended for both on-line and paper distribution; see goals and non-goals. A travel topic about proprietary paper travel guides doesn't belong here, any more than external links to proprietary Web site guides do. --(WT-en) Evan 11:07, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 11:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. I don't think a list of titles is really a goal -- (WT-en) Maj 11:50, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Keeping track of which guides are useful does not help us accomplish our main goal of actually writing a guide.  Leave that for other websites to. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:01, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Keep for the following reasons: --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Not a list of titles, the aim is to reflect opinion and recommendations of the community on every major guide.
 * Paper guides and Wikivoyage are not competitors for most destinations: only few countries (US? UK?) can be planned and visited seriously with Wikivoyage alone. For the rest of the world, travellers use Wikivoyage together with some paper guide--and they complement each other. Better we help them than ignore the fact.
 * Where we're complete enough to compete with commercial paper guides, keeping silent about them is not a best strategy to keep readers with us.
 * We already have contributions like "recommended by LP, but proved bad place". This is the place to put aggregate opinions like "X's recommendations on restaurants are outdated more frequently than in Y".
 * Plans to distribute paper copies do not contradict to help people to share opinions on other guides even when we're close to implementing that plans (but have we started yet?) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * I don't see how having opinions on paper guides can divert people from contributing to Wikivoyage. Also, if they reached the opinions on paper guide, before that they'll definitely read on their next planned destination.
 * I don't propose to link to or criticize on guides to specific destinations--only series.

 *  Here is the VFD discussion for Travel guides, which was deleted on November 23, 2005. It doesn't add a lot to the current discussion, but since we've already deleted an article that was basically the same as Paper travel guides I think it sets the bar a bit higher for making a case that the new article should be kept.  My personal opinion is that a guide to other travel guides is a slippery slope, and that it would be best to avoid such articles.  Regarding the point that the new article should provide opinions on other travel guides, I'm not sure that's our job - we don't provide opinions on other travel web sites, and I don't see why something should be treated differently because it's printed in book form. --(WT-en) Wrh2
 * Travel Guides. A list of other travel guides, which sort of goes against the Project:Goals and non-goals.  Per (WT-en) Colin's comment on the talk page: "I don't think we need to write a guide AND be the arbiter of which other guides are recommendable." -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:48, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Delete. I've redirected to Main Page in the mean time. --(WT-en) Evan 08:26, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Delete. I've stared at this orphan for ages, and just couldn't make up my mind.  Guess I should have taken the initiative to start a discussion, huh? -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 20:05, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Majnoona 09:39, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * (WT-en) Wrh2, do you mean the same previous attempt as User:(WT-en) Sapphire is writing about in Talk:Paper travel guides? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:11, 1 December 2006 (EST)
 * (WT-en) Wrh2, do you mean the same previous attempt as User:(WT-en) Sapphire is writing about in Talk:Paper travel guides? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:11, 1 December 2006 (EST)

 * > I don't think we need to write a guide AND be the arbiter of which other guides are recommendable
 * I would put it bit different way: while writing a guide (and travelling for that writing) we frequenly use the book guides. And we find from experience that overall this series is good in this, and that series is bad in that. Of course we still contribute to Wikivoyage (motivation hardly decrease after using a book)--but while we add some bits, we can help others to choose a guide that we found useful in addition to Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:39, 30 November 2006 (EST)

 * To summarize my point:
 * Community feedback on travel guides can be useful for travellers
 * Having such page won't affect negatively number of readers or contributions to Wikivoyage
 * Wikivoyage is the best online community I can think of where such opinion would be most balanced and up-to-date.
 * --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:48, 30 November 2006 (EST)
 * Keep - under the auspices of the traveler come first policy, I'm inclined to say keep. Of course, it is hoped that Wikivoyage can supply enough info that travelers won't feel the need to cough up bucks for a printed guide, but that's up to them. It is a free market. In addition, from my personal prospective, I feel that the travelers safety and happiness are a priority. And, if I can help them achieve these goals by pointing out some useful material, then I believe that I/we have made a great contribution to their journey, and in this way the traveler comes first goals have been achieved. Of course, all useful info should finally be absorbed into Wikivoyage and specific info should not refer to other guides (such as, for example, 'see Rough Guide P? for more info on cafes') but be written in Wititravel itself, but I still contend that finally it is up to the traveler to make their own choice regarding what kind of guide they prefer, and rather than censor other possibilities, I'd prefer to display them openly. And, if Wikivoyage is the best option, then travelers will obviously choose that. Anyway, my main point is that I feel that travelers' well being and safety should be the guiding principle of our efforts rather than protecting a specific source of information.....just throwing out some random ideas for thought here. The consensus is for delete, and so obviously I'll go along with that. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:02, 30 November 2006 (EST)

 * Keep, for reasons as (WT-en) WindHorse gives above, and with his caveat; I'll go along too if deletion's the consensus. I tell friends about Wikivoyage and encourage them to use it and/or contribute; several have. But I'd also tell anyone planning a trip to China to consider picking up Lonely Planet or Rough Guide too. Since the traveller comes first, maybe we should tell them what we'd tell friends. (WT-en) Pashley 20:03, 4 December 2006 (EST)
 * I agree that TTCF calls for having this information available, because it is useful to the traveler and difficult to obtain elsewhere in a tout-free way. But hoo boy, does this article ever create possibilities for abuse.  How about this as an idea?  Move the content to some user's sandbox page -- User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin, you seem like the strongest advocate for the article, so maybe make it yours -- and then use the discussion page to work through, EXTREMELY carefully, the caveats and restrictions that should be placed at the beginning of the article, as to what content is appropriate and what should be avoided.  Would that satisfy the competing viewpoints? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:01, 12 December 2006 (EST)
 * Sounds better than nothing for me :-) I already copied the content to User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/Paper_travel_guides subpage, so we can continue there. I have two considerations having non-official page as a user subpage:
 * we'll hardly have a single contributor except those participated in the above discussion, plus those few whom I catch in Travel Pub or future VFDs :-)
 * more importantly, we can speculate for months on what can happen in theory, what conflicts appear and how we should prepare for them--but no single real conflict arise as long as 1.
 * Can we leave the page as officially allowed, but saying that it can be possibly deleted if it provokes too much conflicts? At least we'll know from experience rather than having purely theorethical speculations.
 * --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:14, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * I'd say delete this one and use your own for debugging them. Those few folks you "catch in Travel Pub" are exactly the ones who can help resolve the issues, using your sandbox.  Then, when it's ready and a discussion has occurred, re-create this page if appropriate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:34, 16 December 2006 (EST)

 * What is still unclear for me is what exactly are the issues we have to resolve. In other words, how can we now that it's already time to move the page from user sandbox to the public namespace? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:10, 17 December 2006 (EST)

 * I'm going to jump in here: Denis, there is never going to be a time where I'm going to be OK with putting this article into Wikivoyage. There is never going to be a time when I accept your premise: that Wikivoyage isn't good enough, so we're doing travellers a disservice if we don't tell them about "real" travel guides. Even our stubbiest, emptiest guide is better than a proprietary equivalent because it is Free -- free to add to, free to copy and share, free to improve upon. And I think that the public agrees: according to Alexa, we're the #2 travel guide site on the Web after lonelyplanet.com -- and we're closing in fast. I don't think we have to apologize for the work thousands of Wikivoyagers have put into this project, and I think we insult those volunteers if we do. So, to get to the point: the goal of your article is incompatible with the goals of this project, and I for one will never accept it. --(WT-en) Evan 21:16, 17 December 2006 (EST)

 * By the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle, it looks like time for this one to go. One last call for votes to the contrary; lacking any, I'll delete it later today.  Denis, your voice has been heard, but you're in a minority on this one.  Please go ahead and use your sandbox page to try to sway opinions, if you wish; I for one will be watching it to see if a satisfactory article results.  Your enthusiasm for this idea is sincerely appreciated, but Evan's right, the case for the article meeting our goals has simply not been made to most people's satisfaction. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:54, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, but see followup at User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/Paper travel guides. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Bed & Breakfast BC

 * A B&B, not a destination. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:36, 6 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete As above and too short to be useful. (WT-en) Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:47, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Bud.jpg
I don't really see any concievable use for this. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:00, 7 December 2006 (EST)
 *  Delete Not used so definately not needed. (WT-en) Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:47, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Image:ShekiTransportationMap1Small-Japanese.jpg
Has the Norwegian Embassy really licensed this as CC by-sa 1.0? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:20, 7 December 2006 (EST)
 * Even in the unlikely event that they have it's not very useful. Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:52, 8 December 2006 (EST)

 * Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 15:04, 22 December 2006 (EST)

DzerkaliTur

 * Delete, some sort of outdoors park. Not an article. --(WT-en) Evan 08:04, 7 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete As above. (WT-en) Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 15:04, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Glitzia
No such place (Getty | Google | Wikipedia). ~ 203.144.143.4 13:29, 18 December 2006 (EST)

 * Delete. I agree. I think this may have been added as a joke. I don't think a redirect is good either. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:06, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted per first criterion ("...just plain gibberish"). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:18, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Western illinois university

 * Delete, a school of any sort is not usually an article. Possible speedy candidate. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:21, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Keep and redirect to Macomb (Illinois), which I just created. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:39, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete even if redirected it's still not appropriate. (WT-en) Xania 20:21, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect as Andrew proposes. We've handled other universities (e.g. Baylor) this way; no reason to vary the routine for this one despite the crummy capitalization. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:38, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete this. If we need a redirect, do that with correct capitalisation. (WT-en) Pashley 02:18, 15 December 2006 (EST)
 * I suspect that the unusual capitalization is due to a MW feature (flaw?), which causes the first letter of every page to be capitalized. I know a great many people who refuse to capitalize when they're searching for things on the net and I believe the user who created the article typed in "western illinois university".  Hence the abnormal capitalization, which, I feel shouldn't be an issue since a user can use all lowercase letters and still be redirected to the appropriate page. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 09:44, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Macomb (Illinois). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:06, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Hotelvillaombak.jpg
Almost certainly a copyvio. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:53, 13 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. It is a copyvio. http://www.hotelombak.com/ (WT-en) Pashley 03:26, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted (belatedly), clear copyvio from the site Pashley gives. We should have done this one as soon as he found the link. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:19, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Carlos palma.jpg

 * Delete. An image of.... a tour guide. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:18, 12 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete... but can you email it to me first, that one's a classic... (WT-en) Cacahuate 05:23, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Xania 18:21, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:16, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Chita.JPG
Not a good image, and not appropriate to photograph any of the burnings, so encouraging it in a travel guide is counter-intelligent. Is that a word? (WT-en) Cacahuate 04:38, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Not a good image. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 20:13, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:08, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:48, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Lake gardens
I can't find a place for this name. Former content was, "lake gardens of italy muppets by lee bariow its nice!!!!", which doesn't give much of a clue of what the place is supposed to be. --(WT-en) Evan 12:43, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 12:43, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Xania 18:22, 16 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Muppets?  -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:10, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:52, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Easytobook
Advertisement for a web booking service. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 09:18, 14 December 2006 (EST) Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 21:21, 28 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * I added this page as I wanted to start a series on websites that might make your travelling easier. I did not intend it as an advertisement at all. (WT-en) Hraicom 06:19, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Hyashi Village
All that's there is the template since May '06. Not sure what's so special about a Maui plantation village to warrant an article in Wikivoyage. (WT-en) KeithH 04:31, 17 December 2006 (EST)

 * Keep. It may take years to finish articles on Wikivoyage; we don't delete them just for that reason. A place doesn't have to be special for someone to visit it; if people visit, they want travel information. --(WT-en) Evan 09:14, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. I like little places. I agree with (WT-en) Evan and I will see if I can add some information to the article. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:19, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * Have done a little research and this is a pretty small spot from our friend in Maine. We will see, but it may not make the cut. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:40, 17 December 2006 (EST)

 * Keep. This is the kind of article that might eventually be subsumed in a "rural" article, but until then, it describes an actual place, and its obnoxious origins aren't grounds for deletion.  See example at top of page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:30, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:11, 31 December 2006 (EST)


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2007

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/November 2007 or Project:Votes for deletion/January 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Image:Holyrood_Palace_Edinburgh.jpg
Uploaded to shared. (WT-en) WTDuck2 15:18, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * No particular issues with deleting this because it's superseded by a Shared image, but I just noticed that the Shared image itself has license issues. Is that real, or is it an artifact of the way the Shared image was created?  I'd like to resolve that question before deleting this image. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:16, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)

San Diego/Columbia
Okay, so we've got all these district articles for separate neighborhoods in Downtown San Diego. The problem is that each neighborhood really doesn't have enough stuff to stand on its own (with the possible exception of Little Italy). I think all of them should be combined into a single Downtown article, which I have already created with all the listings that are on each page. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

 * Redirect all. Since they are places, I think redirects would be the (marginally) best way to handle overly subdivided districts, being just a bit cheaper a solution than deletes. And there is the off chance that such redirects might boost page rank on search engines (although that's a moving target). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 06:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Hmmm, that's not a bad idea. Okay, well now I'm willing to go either way (delete or redirect). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 11:52, 19 November 2007 (EST)

 * Redirect. Agreed with Peter. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:03, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Well, seeing as it's been two weeks, I'll redirect them now. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:59, 3 December 2007 (EST)

San Diego/East Village
Same as above. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

San Diego/Gaslamp
Same as above (as above). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

San Diego/Little Italy
Same as above (as above as above). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

San Diego/Marina
Same as above (as above as above as above). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected All. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:13, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Sumer
The entire article is "ok". I am not too familiar with the guidelines here, but I'm assuming that having just two letters would make the article a candidate for deletion. --(WT-en) The Yeti 11:32, 17 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. Not an article, can't think of a suitable redirect; would support speedy deletion.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:17, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Hahnenklee

 * Delete. Too fine grained. Hahnenklee is a very small town in the Harz Mountains in Germany. It is not a major tourist destination at all. Currently the article promotes only a small family pension. It is practically spam.87.163.211.75 14:48, 11 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep, at least for now. "Too fine grained ... not a major tourist destination at all" is not a reason to delete an article, if the place meets the you-can-sleep-there test, and it appears that this one does.  Instead, clean it up and make it useful, or redirect it to something more inclusive.  Might this place be part of an Alpine skiing complex?  If so, is there a sensible "umbrella" article to include it under? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)
 * I looked it up again, it is not even a town. It is a small hamlet with 1200 inhabitants that is part of Goslar, a bigger town in the Harz region. The correct name is Goslar-Hahnenklee-Bockswiese. As in most of the small hamlets in the Harz mountains it is a tourist destination in the sense that it offers places to sleep for tourists visiting the Harz. If you want to keep the info it should be moved to the Goslar page. I fact, the German version of the wikivoyage Goslar page lists the church in Hahnenklee as a Goslar tourist attraction.87.163.211.150 16:01, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * OK, then redirect to Goslar. One of the challenges in Wikivoyage is that the terms "town," "village," "hamlet," etc., vary in meaning from place to place, making a consistent treatment of very small towns difficult.  But I feel strongly that as long as someone may come here looking for info on Hahnenklee, the article name should be kept as a redirect, at the minimum.  We do the same for far smaller towns than this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Goslar. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:46, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Image:Concept Plan for Lantau.jpg
It does not meet our copyleft. This image is "Multi-licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license".

 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Tatata7 03:54, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:33, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Pagasetic Gulf
Thought about a speedy delete for this as it is a body of water (thus not a valid article subject), but was unsure if it was within my authority. --(WT-en) OldPine 18:17, 20 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete, but you did right to put it through the process rather than speedy-deleting it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:28, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:57, 11 December 2007 (EST)

San Diego/Sorrento Valley
I don't know how this happened, but our coverage on San Diego is a disaster. There are far too many district articles that are almost completely irrelevant. I'm trying to restructure the coverage, so this may not be the only time you see me here with a San Diego article.

Anyway, Sorrento Valley is a suburban neighborhood located in north San Diego, and is the home of a number of corporate headquarters and "tech parks", but little else. There's nothing to do, few (if any) places to eat, and only a few motels, which could easily go into the Del Mar article, as it is practically next door (which I've already done with the one hotel listing in this article). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:20, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. I think.  Could you point me towards your overall plan for San Diego?  Maybe that will change my mind.  The current structure was created based on a list of neighborhoods from the city's web site.  I agree that it's a disaster, but I don't think that subsuming part of San Diego into different municipality (Del Mar) is the solution.  I can try to add some dining locations (which I've eaten at) when I stay at that hotel in a couple of weeks.  I'd rather see Sorrento Valley subsumed into a larger north San Diego neighborhood, but I don't know San Diego well enough to restructure things.  --(WT-en) Jonboy 17:04, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Basically, my plan was to run down the list of neighborhoods, keep those that have sufficient places to see, eat, sleep, etc, and get rid of the rest. But for these cases where there doesn't seem to be a whole lot in each neighborhood, I am totally willing to go for more regional articles, like "Northeastern San Diego". (WT-en) PerryPlanet 20:40, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

 * This has been up for VFD for a long time, and it's time to get it resolved. A redirect to somewhere in the new SD hierarchy seems right to me, but I'd prefer it be done by someone who knows the city better than I do. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:51, 6 December 2007 (EST)
 * If we create a "Northeastern San Diego" article, we can redirect Sorrento Valley into that. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:20, 6 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keep/redirect. I'm all for large districts to encompass many smaller neighborhoods of relatively low travel importance. So a merge & redirect to Northeastern San Diego makes sense to me, when its created. Until the hierarchy is sorted out and such an article is created, I think it's fair to just link this article from the talk page and keep for now. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: kept, but "without prejudice"; this should be revisited if/when the San Diego district structure matures. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:51, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Image:Sveti Stefan, Montenegro.jpg
To old to be of any use to a traveler --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:27, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

System of government in mariana
Not an article. Avoided speedy delete since listing it here gives new users the opportunity to see why things get deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)

 * Delete. Text is identical with Northern_Mariana_Islands.I was going to suggest moving info there, but there's no need. (WT-en) Pashley 07:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:19, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Italy resturants
Per Project:What is an article? ~ 202.62.100.49 10:50, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:45, 12 December 2007 (EST)

East Azerbaijan

 * Delete. Page contains one line "veri good mer3000000000". Not an article. (WT-en) Sevenlee 19:00, 4 December 2007 (EST)
 * Speedy redirect to Baku Region, which is more or less "East Azerbaijan." I've done this, but am leaving this up for a day or two in case anyone else would like to comment. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:20, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: redirected. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Image:Maunaleo ~ Journey With Spirit.jpg
Improper license. Reads:My photographs are protected under International Copyright law and may not be posted in another webpage on the internet or used for commercial use without my express written permission. All rights reserved universewide. Mahalo! (WT-en) 2old 09:35, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) 2old 09:35, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. I've advised the poster (owner?) of the license problem, but haven't seen a response. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:35, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. She'd have to remove her signature from the image anyway. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:09, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Image:Lucas.jpg
Business logo, not useful to the traveler --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 10:27, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete Nice picture. Sadly, non-compliant.--(WT-en) Wandering 10:32, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) 2old 11:32, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Image:K880i-1-.jpg
Cellphone, can't think of a valid use on wikivoyage --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:23, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) 2old 12:34, 3 December 2007 (EST)j

Outcome: deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Konopiste
Not an article, can't sleep there. This appears to be the name of a castle (thus, an attraction) rather than a city. Perhaps can be moved to a nearby town? --(WT-en) OldPine 15:05, 17 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Benešov seems appropriate --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:29, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Benesov. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Image:UA Mykolayiv.png
Coat of arms --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:41, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Aegean Sea
As above, a body of water, thus, not an article. Has several links to it. -- (WT-en) OldPine 19:09, 20 November 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. It dawned on me, immediately after deleting the Pagasetic Gulf article, that while this isn't viable as a destination article, it makes good sense as a region in Greece, possibly under the name "Aegean Sea (region)".  Incidentally, I've made a rare entry in Project:Votes for undeletion to see if Pagasetic Gulf should be brought back on the same grounds; suggest discussing there as well. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 11 December 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. I find (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill's argument persuasive. At the least, on purely travel grounds (waters!), it would be an itinerary of sorts. --(WT-en) Wandering 13:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)
 * Comment. Greece currently has two regions for the Aegean; if we keep this as a region (I'd keep the name as just "Aegean Sea", those will have to be dealt with. Alternatively, we could simply redirect this to Greece, even though there are bits of Turkey in the Aegean, almost off the rocks in that sea are Greece-administered. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)
 * Fair enough. The links to this article are all in Greece, and I'm pretty sure that whoever started the article did so thinking of it as a Greek something-or-other, not something shared with Turkey.  (Insert political commentary here; I'm not touching it.)  So maybe even better than keeping the article as it stands is to turn it into a disambiguation page for the existing region articles with "Aegean" in their names. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)
 * Keep as a disambiguation. In general, though, I'm not sure we should keep merely plausible region articles. If they don't fit with the established hierarchy, and redirects/disambigs don't make sense, then we should probably get rid of them. For example, Northern Russia would not have been salvageable in the Russian hierarchy. I also don't support the notion of keeping plausible itineraries—unless someone really shows an interest in developing them, they just sit around as stubs that give people the wrong idea about what gets an article on Wikivoyage. Lastly, the links to the Agean Sea page should be removed, as they give the impression that we encourage links to "body of water" articles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:57, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept as a disambiguation page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:57, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Image:Medina 12.jpg
No model release, unfortunately; it's a pity to delete it, as it gives a real sense of what a market in Fez is like, but it's gotta go. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:36, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:09, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Six Flags Magic Mountain
Per Project:What is an article?. Unlike Disneyland and some other parks, Six Flags Parks are not full resorts, offering no on-site accommodation.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 01:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 * Is it well enough known that we should have a redirect from this title, or from Magic Mountain, to Valencia? We do this for things like Taj Mahal for people who might know the attraction name but not know where it is. (WT-en) Pashley 06:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 * It's fairly well-known in the Cali-Nevada-Arizona area I suppose, but certainly not on world-fame par with Disneyland. A redirect wouldn't bother me. My point is that Six Flags has literally dozens of amusement parks all over North America and we don't have (or need) articles for any of the others, not even the flagship Texas location. Plus the article has a lot of pretty useless information. What use to the traveller is it to have a list of every t-shirt and stuffed animal shop and every vendor in the amusement park? (WT-en) Texugo 22:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. There are too many Six Flags parks across the US to tie this redirect to one area. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:12, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Valencia (California). Each "Six Flags _______" can be redirected to its own locale. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:52, 11 December 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Valencia (California) ~ 203.144.143.4 17:37, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. A redirect from Magic Mountain, the common English name, would be OK, though perhaps unnecessary. However, we do not need one from the longer formal name. (WT-en) Pashley 18:58, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Looks like a redirect to me, unless someone tips the consensus in the next few minutes... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:59, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Valencia (California). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:37, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Rating systems
Present content indicates that it's designed to list rating standards for accommodation in every country. This content belongs on individual country or region pages, as Talk:Rating systems points out. (WT-en) Hypatia 07:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Could it be merged into Hotels? That seems a better place for any overview material. (WT-en) Pashley 04:07, 19 November 2007 (EST)

 * Keep. This does seem a borderline case, which could be merged into individual country/continent pages, but I think the end result might be a bit messy. I would recommend, however, that the Africa section be dumped (as it does not substantially differ from international norms) and the travel topic be narrowed down to cover only its principal content—hotel rating systems in Europe. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: kept. (WT-en) Pashley 06:49, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Chateau de Curton
Single caste, not an article. Can anyone suggest a merge or redirect rather than deletion? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Quoth Wikipedia: "The Curton castle is located in the area called "Entre-Deux-Mers" in Gironde (France), 30 kilometers east from Bordeaux. it is located in the north of village of Daignac at the border of the village of Tizac-de-Curton, whose name comes from the first Lords of Curton." That article also says that a self-catering apartment is available for rental there, so it does pass the you-can-sleep-there test, after a fashion.  Accordingly, keep until somebody comes up with the appropriate redirect, although merge/redirect is probably the correct long-term solution. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:33, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Just noticed that practically the entire text is lifted from WP, so it's time to put this one away. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:28, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:32, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Haor

 * A feature, not a place --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 10:04, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Strong Keep Since the problem seems to be with the title, it's been changed to the Haor basin, which is an 2.5 million hector area spanning over 7 districts in Bangladesh. The area is increasingly becoming popular as a tourist attraction and described by the Lonely Planets Travel Bangladesh Guide as one of the most spectacular sites in Bangladesh. The term Haor area or Bhati elaka is more often used to refer to the area than the Haor basin, but it would be more accurate at that. A mistaken title is not a reason to delete. It rather may be a reason for a move. (WT-en) Aditya Kabir 09:02, 4 December 2007 (EST)
 * The name is not the reason I listed it for deletion; the problem is that it seems to be a large area and I can not see how this will fit into the Bangladesh hierarchy. A park template was used for the article, but other sources (including your excellent work on wikipedia) indicate that the whole area is not a single park. If the Haor can be a valid region within the Bangladesh hierarchy then by all means we should keep it, but then the template should be changed and the other Bangladesh articles should reflect it. As it stand now I would definitely recommend deletion or redirect or at a minimum a redirect to Sylhet Division --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:27, 4 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keep, but: To me this looks more like a travel topic or Itinerary article than a destination article. There seem to be resemblances (thematic more than geological) between this and Cenotes of the Yucatán, which we've decided is a valid Itinerary article.  If this one can be recast in that form, let it be.  If not, then merge and redirect to one of the jumping-off places, but I'd like to see an attempt at an Itinerary article first. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:35, 4 December 2007 (EST)
 * Keep, but: either make it an itinerary or rework the hierarchy so it becomes a region under Bangladesh. (WT-en) Pashley 20:30, 4 December 2007 (EST)
 * An itinerary with a link to Sylhet Division? I don't see anything wrong with that. Style and organization issues can be sorted out, I hope, as long as you wonderful editors are there to help out. But, the destination is a exceptionally valid one. In fact, my wanderings in and around Bangladesh tells me that the Haor basin is one very much a "must see" in Bangladesh. Development of the article to a respectable status may take a little more time. (WT-en) Aditya Kabir 00:59, 7 December 2007 (EST)

 * Redirect to Sylhet Division and mention what haors are there. They're spread over a large area, and aren't really a necessary subdivision of Sylhet, which IMO doesn't need further subdividing at all. I think it only makes sense as an itinerary if you're guiding people along to a few notable ones... I don't see why a paragraph on the Sylhet Division page describing what haors are wouldn't suffice... and if it really needs further description, then maybe break it off into a travel topic – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 21:34, 8 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keep as it is - During my recent visit to Bangladesh, the Haor region was as much a destination as the Himalayas or Scottish Highlands were on other occasions, and there was so little tourist information about it either on the web or in print. The presence or absence of separate location-specific pages such as Loch Ness, Fort William or Glencoe does not make the page on Scottish Highlands superfluous. In future, I would be happy to see people add location specific pages on say Tanguar haor or Shanir haor. Please don't delete the page. It is a beautiful watery kingdom and I say that after visiting such places as Venice and Lake District. I have already added some photographs and shall try to develop the page properly. - (WT-en) P.K.Niyogi 08:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keeping as it is does not work. We have a geographical hierarchy; destination articles need to fit into that and this one currently does not. Making it a subdivision under Sylhet Division would solve that, but I'm not sure it is the best solution. I don't think it is a travel topic subject either. Deleting it would be silly; there's some good info for travellers that we of course want to keep. Moving that info into Sylhet Division probably does not work either; there's too much here to fit well. Make it an itinerary with links from Bangladesh and Sylhet Division. (WT-en) Pashley 22:59, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, but some changes are needed to make it a proper Itinerary article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:36, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Columbus/Short North
Re-district Columbus. Info merged to Columbus/Downtown Short North is about three blocks long. (WT-en) 2old
 * Delete (WT-en) 2old 14:28, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Columbus/German Village
Info to be merged into other areas as re-district takes place. Nice, popular, but very small neighborhood. May want to redirect also. (WT-en) 2old 14:28, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) 2old 14:28, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Discos of Goa
I don't believe this to be an appropriate article heading even for a redirect.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 05:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete — (WT-en) NJR_ZATalk  Monday,  29, 2024 SAST
 * Delete unless there's a volunteer to rebuild it as an itinerary. It could become that with some reviews and comment on the various places, but it would need a fair bit of work to justify having the article. (WT-en) Pashley 19:12, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)

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


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2008

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2008. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/November 2008 or Project:Votes for deletion/January 2009 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Silimbong

 * Delete. Appears to just be a forest, without lodgings. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:42, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * Merge to Darjeeling (district). (WT-en) LtPowers 16:43, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Arsenal
I'm assuming this relates to the English football team. Recommend for deletion unless there is a place called Arsenal. (WT-en) Shaund 23:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)
 * Possible disambiguation page; there are a lot of arsenals that are attractions. Wikipedia:Arsenal (disambiguation) indicates no places with that name except maybe a section of Paris.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:31, 29 November 2008 (EST)
 * I thought the team was named for a London neigborhood. Disambig sounds good to me. (WT-en) Pashley 00:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Disambiguation pages are for articles where the title allows ambiguity, and articles are about destinations, not attractions. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:10, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Festivals in Edmonton
Don't need it anymore.
 * Delete please. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 12:55, 7 December 2008 (EST).

 * Redirect - to where the festivals are now --(WT-en) Inas 14:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete - The festivals are districtified into the appropriate district articles of Edmonton. (WT-en) Texugo 00:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)
 * The current redirect looks appropriate to me. --(WT-en) Inas 22:47, 15 December 2008 (EST)

WoW+Gold+Tips

 * Delete Gaming, not Travel, almost the same as in Shared recently --(WT-en) Rein N. 02:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete'. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 02:17, 13 December 2008 (EST).

Image:Mall.jpg
Copyrighted image from http://www.simon.com/mall/default.aspx?ID=848.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 23:05, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete, it's a good pic, but it's copyright. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The copyvio image appears to have been replaced with a different one. I'd still vote delete, as it doesn't contribute anything notable, but let's make sure that we're acting on the right thing. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:35, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Image:StrathFarmMarket2008pic.JPG
Includes recognizable people.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:12, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * What you want my picture deleted? Why?(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep, its a good picture and I kind of find it insulting people don't want my pictures. Kind of lures me away from contributing.  I didn't even know this was going on, and it's my picture, I should have known.  If I wasn't on, I wouldn't have known. It, to me, shows tourists that this place is busy and that because of that it seems attractive and desirable.  Do you just want me to go back without thee market in session and take it as a "blank canvas" with no one there.  Ya, thats gonna lure people there tsk tsk.  Especially with all the barrenness, yay!(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:53, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. That's not a comment on the quality of the picture. We're glad you want to contribute pictures. But for legal reasons, it's part of the image policy on this website that photos can't have recognizable people in them - unless they signed a waiver form giving you permission to use their image. Nobody's trying to squash your enthusiasm. That's just the policy by which the several thousand images on this site exist. Here's an example of a photo from a food market where the photographer managed to create a great image of the food and not the people. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 14:06, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks, it's really reassuring. Anyways, I assume it's ok to have people in the picture as long as they aren't recognizable (E.g. far away, head turned, whatever)? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:19, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, we have some photos like that. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 14:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Good, because I've uploaded some photos like that. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Comment. This isn't really in violation of our policy, none of these people are crucial to the picture, any of them could be removed without changing it. I would, however, like to see a different pic uploaded that maybe has fewer people in it, it would serve the article better. Also, this is image is on shared, we can't vfd a image on shared from the english WT, you have to do it over there :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks, Cacahuate! Your points are very well taken, the reason why I took that photo is because it looks more appealing seeing a place full of life because then a traveller thinks, "If all those people go there, and seem content, it must be good!"  Sadly the only other farmers market pictures (The Old Strathcona one) are of random signs and the xterioer! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 16:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. IMO the people are the focus of the photo, and are easily identifiable.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The point was to show the "hustle and bustle" of the area... (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:34, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The picture of is a crowded market scene, and our policy explicitly allows those. But again, it's a moot point, because this image resides on shared, and anyone wants it deleted they need to nominate it there, not here – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * But unfortunately I don't think the photo succeeds at that. It doesn't look to me like a crowded market scene, that would show lots of people more anonymously.  Instead it shows three people quite close up, and far from anonymous.   I'd be annoyed if one of the people in the front of the frame was me.  (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast seems like an engaged, reasonable person.  I'm sure if the consensus is that its is inappropriate, he/she will replace it appropriately, and an admin delete won't be necessary. --(WT-en) Inas 01:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Inas! Hey, well sorry I forgot to take pictures I wanted that day because I was so into the market and just took one as I was leaving. I thought if you looked behind those people you'd see people.  Anyways I can't really edit 'em out without like destroying the pictures purpose.  Although ,you'll have to discuss this on shared.  If you guys really hate it, I don't know how to delete, but it can get voted off I guess.  I see all your points as valid so there's no point fighting.  ¡Bien Días de los Muertes!  (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

West End
With that, it links to London/West End but there are multiple "West End"'s and travellers may be looking for others. It may be the most common, but still! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 16:49, 13 November 2008 (EST).
 * Delete.' Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 16:49, 13 November 2008 (EST).
 * Keep, but make it a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Even if London's is the most famous West End, it doesn't follow that it's always going to be the one for which users are looking.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:29, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * Exactly, good point. Disambiguation page would be great!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 17:36, 13 November 2008 (EST).

 * Changed to a disambiguation page. (WT-en) Texugo 00:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept as disambiguation page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Silverjet

 * Delete.  Leave wikipedia to write the history books.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete, useless to the traveler since they ceased operations months ago. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)

India/kukkesubramanya
All content was copyvio of http://www.indiatourism.com/kukke-subramanya/index.html and http://www.theindiatravel.com/cityguide/state/karnataka/kukkesubramanya.html. Improper naming convention and the fact that this is an attraction (a temple rather than a destination unto itself) suggest to me a deletion rather than a redirect.
 * 'Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 08:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST).

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Image:Noah webster.jpg
Copyright violation --(WT-en) Nick 01:20, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 02:52, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete, but only because it's copyright. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * However, it's a Wikivoyage Shared image. The process needs to be followed there, not here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted (from Wikivoyage Shared). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Dracula
Content was copyvio from www.romania-tour.com/vlad-tepes-count-dracula-tours-vampire.html. A historical figure does not constitute an article per policy.
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 20:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:29, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Sepang
User:(WT-en) Anwarul vfd'd this article back in August but apparently didn't add it to this page. The page needs to be cleaned up at the very least, but I don't know enough about the area to say whether it should exist as a region article or not, although there are at least a few city articles under it in the hierarchy.
 * No idea -- (WT-en) Texugo 01:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Keep I've just gone through the history... There was a much better article back in May. I've rolled back to that edit, but I have also re-added the vfd tag just to keep things linked. (WT-en) Nrms 04:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Keep --(WT-en) Inas 05:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Keep Nrms gives an excellent reason. (WT-en) Pashley 06:06, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Keep. The area is a bit of a strange duck — it was basically just palm plantations until they decided to plonk down the new KL airport and F1 track there — but the May 2008 city article is the least inappropriate. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:25, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Glod

 * Delete Speedy? It's not a destination (no result from Google Maps) and was added by an IP address with silly text. (WT-en) Nrms 04:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)
 * Speedied. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)
 * Just a little addendum - I think in general it's better to use wikipedia for checking, as google's coverage is spotty at best outside developed countries - there are 6 places called Glod in Romania for instance.
 * Are you saying the all-powerful Google might have got something wrong??? ;) But joking aside, relevant point for future reference. Perhaps this needs adding somewhere like the Nominations section up above. Not that we'd have had much joy in this case given the lack of useful content. (WT-en) Nrms 08:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Well, well, well - wouldn't you know. Silly text eh? Google gotten something wrong? may I quote wikipedia "Glod was a shooting location for the mockumentary film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" :o) he! You just learn something new and entirely useless every day on the interweb, don't you. :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * I could have sworn I checked Wikipedia before speedying. Guess not.  Anyway, it's still a valid speedy because the content was useless.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Not meant as a criticism at all - if someone feels like they have something to add to the matter, I have no problem with them using 10 extra seconds to create the page. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bangkok/www.hqhostel.com
Not an article.
 * Speedied, for the second time. (WT-en) Texugo 23:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Sarrebruck

 * Delete The page is in French. I relocated the text into French Wikivoyage. We already have a page in Wikivoyage/en for Saarbrücken. I think it was created in error. (WT-en) Jnich99 11:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * Redirect per deletion policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * The redirect seems clearly appropriate for this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Saarbrücken. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 9 December 2008 (EST)

TusenFryd, Norways largest amusement park
Doesn't really warrent an article, and the naming is bad bad bad, also see the Talk page (WT-en) Sertmann 22:51, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete or Redirect. Normally, I'd be tempted to just speedy delete this, but a redirect works just fine too. So, as an admin I'd delete, but as a non-admin, I'd just redirect, since that takes less time than a vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:07, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete, but not speedy. Let's follow the process.  A redirect to TusenFryd could be discussed, but I don't think it's correct; the park's own web site basically says there's no lodging there, although there is some nearby.  A redirect to Kolbotn might be better; that's where they say the nearest hotel is. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:15, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The smallest surrounding region for which we have an article appears to be Akershus. Beyond that, I can't say which towns/cities/villages would be worth an article or not.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
 * How about a Merge into Oslo? (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:32, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I like your thinking. I'd support a Merge on that basis. (WT-en) Nrms 10:36, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete this, since the name is wrong. Move text to Oslo. Probably create a redirect from TusenFryd to that. (WT-en) Pashley 07:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:57, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Lake Maggiore
Bodies of water don't get their own articles per policy.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 03:53, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it may be time to revisit that policy. We have articles on Great Lakes and Lake Titicaca, for example.  Lakes and rivers that are likely to be the target of user searches should have articles, even if just to direct the user to other articles.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete - sometimes lakes refer to a region around the lake, like the Great Lakes. That would seem to me to make them valid articles, because they don't just refer to the body of water, but the surrounding area.  This doesn't appear to me to be the case for this article.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge and Redirect - I have to agree with (WT-en) LtPowers in that Lake Maggiore is a likely search target for users. I don't know an awful lot about either of them but my perception would be that Lake Maggiore is of a similar status to Lake Garda, which does have an article. Before being drawn to the articles by this vfd I had never heard of any of the towns listed as being on the shores of them, however I was aware of both lakes as popular destinations for tourists and travellers.
 * On the other hand I do feel that the policy of bodies of water not being a valid topic is a sound one in most cases. I wouldn't like to see a sudden slew of articles about random rivers, lakes, bays, gulfs etc which would make a mess of the existing geographical hierarchy we have here and which would take up efforts which would be better directed on the relevant regions and cities.
 * I suggest that this article should be merged into Italian Lake District, with a redirect put in place. Likewise for Lake Garda and Lake Como. Individual listings should be moved into the relevant City/Town articles as and when they get written. (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:09, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Merge and Redirect into Italian Lake District. (WT-en) Pashley 19:16, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected as suggested. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:32, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Category:Visa Restricted Countries
We don't do categories, and this seems so vague as to be thoroughly useless anyway. Individual visa issues (Israel vs Arabs etc) are already covered on the country pages. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete the category, certainly. It could be resurrected as a travel topic article, though probably it is best to just cover it in country articles. (WT-en) Pashley 19:51, 27 November 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. Best to discuss visa issues on the country page, and keep it all in one place – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. --(WT-en) Inas 19:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. (WT-en) Multimotyl 20:58, 10 December 2008 (EST).

 * Keep I just added text and links to what had been a stub article. Much more useful now. (WT-en) SONORAMA 10:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * First, it's a category, not an article; and second, details of countries' visa restrictions belong in the country articles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Not an article. Visa Info. needs to be added to destination. (WT-en) 2old 14:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. Current practice is that categories are not used on Wikivoyage.  Note, however, that it would be great if we could re-visit that stance on Project:Categories as there are numerous uses for categories that could make our guides better. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. I suggested this category to allow prospective travellers to quickly and easily identify countries which apply special restrictions on travellers who have visited certain countries previously, or who carry passports from specific countries. This category was intended to be used in conjunction with a template for these warning (so the details would be held on the specific country's page, as per current practices) but in a more standardised and indexed fashion. -- Lucanos

 * For part A of that, discovering what restrictions apply for visiting a country, the "Get in" sections of individual country articles already handle the job.
 * Part B, listing what countries can/cannot be visited by the holder of a given passport, could conceivably be a set of travel topics if defined well enough, eg. "Travel restrictions for Israeli passport holders". But it's useless to have a category that means "somebody can't visit this country for some reason" -- is the US "travel restricted" because Cubans and North Koreans have a hard time visiting it? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:35, 15 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 01:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. Categories may not currently be widely used, but the referenced page supporting that stance has not had action in some time, and I created this category and it's associated template to try and add what I would think is value to the Wikivoyage content. Admittedly, the filler text added to trhe Category page could be culled down, but I believe that the concept is sound and worthy of at least being given a fair trial. -- (WT-en) Lucanos 09:36, 15 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. Wikivoyage doesn't use categories, so it's a non-starter. If you feel strongly about it, try re-fashioning the information into a travel topic. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 09:54, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:41, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Dorothy
I noticed on recent changes that someone had tagged this "vfd", but it was not listed here. I'm listing it now, though it appears to me to be a legitimate destination we should keep. Can someone who knows the area please chime in? (WT-en) Pashley 12:29, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * DELETE  I marked it; I have actually been through this "town" which only has a name because of a Post Office, next to a railroad track. There is absolutely nothing of interest here (certainly no place to "sleep" which is a criteria). I believe someone added it to Wikivoyage as a joke of some kind. Read the SEE section of the article. (WT-en) gamweb 12:35, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. can't sleep there. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:01, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep. Peter, I believe you misinterpret the "can't sleep there" disqualification; it is intended to address places where it's not possible, or at least legal, to sleep (lakes, day-use parks, etc.), rather than towns lacking hotels.  There was a big discussion of this about a year ago IIRC.  This tiny town is no less a "destination" in that regard than any number of places in, say, North Dakota that we've always accepted as appropriate for an article.  And gamweb, maybe there's nothing of interest to you, but the traveler whose Uncle Egbert lives there would still have reason to refer to Wikivoyage before going to visit. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't remember this discussion, but this seems to me not a valid article no matter which way you slice it. I've checked this town, and there are no sights, no hotels/motels—only three establishments of any kind (all eateries/bars). I see no utility in a travel article to such a place. Another example off the top of my head is Pritchet, CO. There is one restaurant and one little shop. Anyone driving through the town will see them immediately (same goes for Dorothy), and can simply walk in and look at the menu. At most, a town/census designated area this small deserves no more than a mention in the get out section of a near town. If the traveler really needs advice on which of the three eateries to go to, he could just ask Uncle Egbert or anyone on the street. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:29, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I tend to agree that the "can you sleep there" metric is intended to help delineate between "destinations" and "attractions", not between "destinations that get an article" and "destinations that don't". On the other hand, "Sleep" is a required section in any destination article, highlighting its importance.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep If we really want to be a travel guide for the world, I think we should waiver the demand for sleeping as far as actual cities is concerned. Juuuuuust my two cents (WT-en) Sertmann 17:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Is Uncle Egbert in any way related to Joe the Plumber? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 04:09, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Neutral. However, if there are three places to eat/drink here, somebody has to propose where they belong (county level?) if this is not held to be a "destination". (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * As I see it, we're not a restaurant review site, we're a destination guide site; if a restaurant is in a town/village not worth writing about, we might as well not write about it. If we're dealing with a sparsely populated region in, say, Tusheti, and there's one nice restaurant in a small village, we should point that out either on the region page, or on a nearby town big enough to write about. But this is frikkin New Jersey!

 * The "can you sleep there" rule is useful for delimiting what we will and will not write about, so we avoid using up time categorizing non-destinations like this one, and avoid cluttering our site with non-useful information. It's a waste of space to subdivide regions and link to non-towns like this. The rule is also a convenient way to dismiss out of hand pages like this, which are not useful, and were created by a certain page-creation-troll precisely to waste our time in discussions like these. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

 * Redirect to the county and move any worthwhile info in the article there. (WT-en) Pashley 20:04, 27 November 2008 (EST)

 * I'm not sure there's consensus here yet, but if there is, it's most likely for a keep. One last call for opinions, then I'll move on it tomorrow. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:28, 15 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. I'm convinced by, and agree with (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:38, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:53, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Image:Tong Gu Mountain.jpg
Very tacky-looking text across the photo that reads "Wenchang @ Ton Gu Mountain". Photos should not have text in the image. Also possible copyright violation.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 02:51, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The text part has been fixed by the image's creator(?). What leads you to the conclusion that there's a copyvio?  I'd incline to keep it now, unless the copyvio can be documented. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:02, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Now I see that the photo is on a site called "iGuide" as well -- not sure of the legitimacy of the site, but most likely the owner of the photo loaded it there as well as here. In any event, I don't see a copyvio, based on the (alleged) terms of use at that site. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:30, 15 December 2008 (EST)
 * Keep. The text in the image has gone.  The fact that the uploader removed it, would make it quite unlikely to be a copyvio.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:41, 15 December 2008 (EST)
 * Comment - I believe the source of my copyvio suspicion may have been other verifiable copyvios in the same batch of uploads, though I could be mistaken. At any rate, it probably wouldn't have caught my attention at all if it hadn't had the text in the first place.

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:56, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Pulpit Rock and Preikestolen
A rock does not merit its own article, much less two separate ones.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 19:47, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * Attraction, not a destination, so Redirect both to Stavanger. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:15, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * Redirect. I could go either way with this, but the named articles constitute a useful navigational aid. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:15, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:13, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Nathu La
Does not appear to be anything more than a mountain pass, which shouldn't get its own article. (WT-en) Texugo 02:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)

 * This is an interesting one. I'm not sure what to do with it, but this makes for interesting reading. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)

 * How about making it a disambiguation page, noting to check out Gangtok if traveling from India to China, and then whatever Chinese town you come from to get there if crossing into India – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 04:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

 * Redirect to Gangtok. This is an attraction (of sorts...), not a destination, and it is the next step along the slippery slope down which we started with Panmunjeom.  However, it's also high profile (like Panmunjeom), so having it accessible via search benefits the traveler, so redirect rather than delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:04, 8 December 2008 (EST)

 * Actually that's better, I forgot that it's not open to tourists for crossing, it's only for import/export purposes, so indeed, an attraction, but can't cross there – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:03, 9 December 2008 (EST)

 * Yes, redirect. We actually have a few articles on passes including some I started: Khyber Pass, Khunjerab Pass (a redirect) Bolan Pass (deleted once, but someone re-created it), and several I had nothing to do with: Hamta Pass, Salang Pass, Snoqualmie Pass, Crowsnest Pass, Three Pagodas Pass. I'd say any well-known pass is a possible search term. A few, like the Kyhber, might qualify as regions. The others should all be redirects. (WT-en) Pashley 07:05, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:07, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Image:Kg_Tengah_Roti_Canai.jpg
Recognizable faces, not particularly illustrative of anything. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 22:52, 14 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete --(WT-en) Inas 22:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete as its not useful. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 18:14, 18 December 2008 (EST).

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:38, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Prospect Creek
According to Wikipedia, it has been an abandoned camp since the early 1990s, the population is 0, and therefore one cannot sleep there. See Wikipedia article:. Could possibly redirect to Dalton Highway (a couple of miles away) or Bettles (population 39) 25 miles away, but no WT article yet. (WT-en) AHeneen 07:08, 14 December 2008 (EST)

 * Redirect. Dalton Highway would seem like a reasonable redirection target. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:16, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Dalton Highway. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hitchhiking Spots Romania

 * Merge into relevant city articles. (WT-en) Texugo 03:43, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Merge some here, delete the rest. Suggest the contributor try | Hitchwiki who would probably want all of it. Put a link to Hitchwiki page in Romania article here. (WT-en) Pashley 07:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the hitchwiki tip, but please leave a link in the wikivoyage romaniaarticle to the hitchwikisite, because most people dont know about hitchwiki!(WT-en) Deni120 04:38, 14 November 2008 (EST)
 * There are better ways of accommodating Hitchwiki (which can and should be discussed elsewhere, I'll try to get something started). Delete; this isn't a valid destination and lacks the comprehensive kind of information found in Hitchhiking in Japan to justify it as a Topic. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:42, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Nagarjuna Sagar
Article about a dam in India, have no Idea where to redirect, and I hardly think this is the Hoover dam anyway (WT-en) Sertmann 05:36, 13 November 2008 (EST)

 * It is mentioned on Nalgonda under See. Perhaps move the text and redirect. The text on the page does suggest there is, perhaps, some interest about the place. (WT-en) Nrms 05:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)

 * Ok merged the content into Nalgonda - but I'm still in support of a Delete

 * Because it was merged, we should change it into a redirect, maintaining the page history for attribution purposes. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)

 * It is a fairly well-known weekend getaway from Hyderabad. Lots of tourists. The article quality doesn't reflect the place's popularity. I'll be going there come the weekend of 29-30/11; will fill in an article then. —The preceding comment was added by 121.246.148.205 (talk • contribs).

 * But can you sleep there? (WT-en) LtPowers 15:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

 * Yes, see: http://www.aptourism.in/naccomodations.html. AP Tourism's website has a host of information useful in this article, starting at: http://www.aptourism.in/nglance.html.

 * Certainly looks like I stand corrected. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:43, 19 November 2008 (EST)

 * Even though you can sleep there, I favor a Redirect at this time. The article isn't anything remotely approaching the WT standard.  If someone wants to make the redirect page into an actual article, that's fine, but lacking one, having the article for search engines to find, but not messing around with something badly misformatted, etc., seems best. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Nalgonda. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Central Lopka
Obvious hoax. At least a few others of the sort have been speedied out within the last few days. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:02, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks — this one got the speedy treatment as well. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 16:43, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Image:Madrid_pickpockets_dec_08.jpg
Two easily recognizable faces and a potential libel. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 16:48, 28 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 * I speedy-deleted this because of the libel issue, but will leave the discussion here against the (improbable, IMO) possibility that someone disagrees. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:40, 30 December 2008 (EST)

When was vrindaven built.

 * Delete - Not a valid page name on Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Rein N. 10:35, 30 December 2008 (EST)
 * Speedied. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:07, 30 December 2008 (EST)


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2009

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2009. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/November 2009 or Project:Votes for deletion/January 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Bannana
nonsence --(WT-en) Rein N. 08:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 * Speedy. First admin to see it will delete I am sure. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:14, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 * Or redirect to Banana Island? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:30, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 * Or indeed the city in Dem Rep of Congo, it is redlinked here. :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:34, 1 December 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect to Banana, perhaps - this is starting to sound like a disambiguation page. There is also a Banana territory mentioned in Caribbean Costa Rica, though the article hasn't been created ... yet. I don't think deleting it is a solution, as Bannana is a mispelling of Banana that appears in several (I count 4) Wikivoyage articles! - (WT-en) Huttite 05:40, 2 December 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. No question. (WT-en) Pashley 11:45, 3 December 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. If no one has yet thought to create the page that we could consider redirecting it to, then any redirection is useless.  --(WT-en) inas 17:57, 3 December 2009 (EST)
 * The current page makes WT look silly. The Bannana page was clearly set up as a joke and here we are spending time and effort trying to justify it. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:30, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Banana created as disambiguation page, this redirected there. (WT-en) Pashley 17:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Whilst I am delighted to see this discussion archived, we have effectively redirected a spelling mistake. I hope that does not create a precedent. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:09, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Justin bieber

 * Speedy Deletion - Person's name - (WT-en) Huttite 06:23, 2 December 2009 (EST)

 * Speedy. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

London/Oxford_Street
It's a road running through multiple districts, making a redirect not useful. Streets do not get their own articles right? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 20:13, 2 December 2009 (EST)

 * But the street name does defines a district, so I would think it is a common search term for shopping strip part of Oxford Street. A redirect to London/West End might set people on the right track?  --(WT-en) inas 20:49, 2 December 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect to London/West End London/Mayfair-Marylebone. Oxford Street is unquestionably a search term that will be used and much of it is in this district.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:09, 2 December 2009 (EST)
 * Redirect (WT-en) Pashley 11:48, 3 December 2009 (EST)
 * Redirect to London. London/West End will not be part of the new districts scheme. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:19, 3 December 2009 (EST)
 * If it is a likely search term, then wouldn't it be better to create a redirect for Oxford Street or London Oxford Street/Oxford Street London and then delete this? I don't know anyone who searches using the "/". If this is another one of those instances where it is not deleted in order to preserve credit then I suppose it can be redirected. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:37, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * A search for Oxford Street in our box will still return London/Oxford Street. More importantly, the policy (Project:Deletion_policy) is to redirect (and that policy exists largely to save us time). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:14, 4 December 2009 (EST)

 * I am very tempted to Move in Oxford Street (disambiguation) to plug the Oxford Street gap, since this is is where the page naturally sits. You could redirect it there then use Oxford Street to explain what districts in London that Oxford Street runs through. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:01, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * The current re-direct to London/Soho is not the most helpful. Most of the best Oxford St shopping (the main, if not only, reason for searching for Oxford Street) is in London/Mayfair-Marylebone. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:24, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * And certainly a more likely search term for the district than the district name itself. --(WT-en) inas 17:45, 6 December 2009 (EST)

What about London/Bond Street? That seems to have been deleted, but I'd say it should also be a redirect since it is a likely search term. I don't know london well enough to be sure where to redirect it. (WT-en) Pashley 20:54, 8 December 2009 (EST)

 * Probably a valid re-direct I agree. It should re-direct to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:25, 8 December 2009 (EST)
 * Did that. (WT-en) Pashley 01:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Www.niseko-gourmet.com

 * Speedy deleted - Advertising spam. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:08, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Niseko gourmet
Not an article but a catering company.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:07, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted as listed. - Advertising spam that was same as Www.niseko-gourmet.com. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:15, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Llullaillaco
Had no real content --(WT-en) Rein N. 08:45, 11 December 2009 (EST)
 * Speedy deletion. Done by myself (WT-en) jan 09:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Dallam County

Texas has well over 300 counties, many of them with only a couple of tiny towns, and so counties are not an organizational structure that we use for the state. This county article, in particular, is unlikely to ever contain anything more than Dalhart, and there really isn't anything else to mention there.
 * Redirect to High Plains. (WT-en) Texugo 08:28, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 * Keep as the destination can be a regional article for Dalhart. If it is only going to contain Dalhart, the redirect it there, not to High Plains. Also, the discussion on whether we should have US counties as articles, is only a discussion, it does not appear to have been turned into policy. - (WT-en) Huttite 18:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 * 'Redirect to High Plains. No point at all having a region article with one city in it and disrupting what looks like a sensible existing regional structure for this state. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 * Redirect. Actually, I redirected it before I saw this discussion. I referenced that discussion, since the consensus resulting (as I understand it) is practical: when U.S. counties make for sensible regions (like the ones with strong individual identities in the very dense population center of Capital Region (Maryland)), then it's fine to give them their own articles. When it's some tiny western county, arbitrarily drawn as a square, denoting a section of flat nothingness with a population of 6,000 (basically all of whom live in the tiny town of Dalhart), then it's not. Of the two other towns added to that article, one is a ghost town, and the other has a whopping 500 residents—neither pass the wiaa criteria. I think the standard practice is to redirect unneeded/non-article subregions to the parent region, but I'm fine with redirecting to Dalhart instead, if people think it worthwhile. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:44, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Travel topics/
Spam, please speedy deletion -  --(WT-en) Rein N. 07:41, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * Done. This is at least the third time a spammer has hit that page name. Should we create an empty page there and protect it? (WT-en) Pashley 08:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * There are a few similar targets, and we'll be chasing our tails creating and protecting these articles for every spambot. Easy enough to delete.  --(WT-en) inas 18:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * Pages that are repeatedly recreated by spambots are specifically called out in Project:Protected page policy as pages to create (as a redirect) with permanent protection. In the past we have had a few pages that get re-created on a near-daily basis until a protected redirect is created. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * To me, hammering away has an implication that it is being done in an automated fashion too quickly for us to practically revert - the same basis that we would protect any other page from a bot. The volume here clearly doesn't qualify it for this ugly hack.  --(WT-en) inas 20:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * Spammers will go to anther page so easy and fast. Put pages like this in your watch list and delete by hand. --(WT-en) Rein N. 07:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Diamond travels

 * Speedy deletion - Business listing. - (WT-en) Huttite 10:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)
 * Deleted - (WT-en) Huttite 10:12, 29 December 2009 (EST)

The River Tuul Nomad%27s Sacred Valley
The whole page is a copyvio and marked as such and it could well be treated as an attraction with a camp, rather than a destination. As it is only 25 miles from Ulaan Baatar I suggest emptying the page, redirecting to Ulaan Baatar and putting a description of the attraction in that article. The copyvio text also made it to the Mongolia page and I have deleted it there. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:54, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 * Redirect It is alresdy mentioned in Ulaan Baatar. It might be worth rewriting the useful information there first. --(WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:44, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 * On closer inspection, the useful information is already in Ulaanbaatar. So emptied and redirected. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:06, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Yokohama city kanazawa ward
Obviously a district of Yokohama, but as that city is not districtified, I moved all the content to Yokohama and think this one can be deleted. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 16:08, 21 December 2009 (EST)

 * Delete (far too awkwardly titled to be a useful redirect), and thanks for doing the merge work. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 18:12, 21 December 2009 (EST)

 * So did we decide that attribution is unnecessary when it comes to merges, or that some other mechanism of attribution is more important? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:38, 21 December 2009 (EST)

 * Delete I hate to sound mean, but these Japanese pages are obnoxious! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:20, 22 December 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect per Project:Deletion policy. Policy is clear on this, and it's for a reason—to save the time of vfds. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:23, 22 December 2009 (EST)

 * Seems like policy is clear, so I made it redirect to Yokohama. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 20:25, 23 December 2009 (EST)