text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2008

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

Dublin Airport and Dublin airport
Not an article (only huge airports get their own articles). (WT-en) Metaur 17:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

 * Merge & redirect. Useful content should be moved to Dublin, and I think a redirect to the same page would be in order for both articles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

its not needed, all that information could be put (concisely) into the main article on Dublin - London Gatwick and City don't have their own articles (WT-en) Prof Jack 17:44, 10 December 2007 (EST) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (EST)

 * Delete. A redirect makes sense for something famous like Taj Mahal because someone might search for it, not knowing what city it was in. Dublin Airport isn't that famous, you'd need to be fairly dull not to realise it is near Dublin, and even then if you search for "Dublin Airport", the software is going to find the Dublin article automatically. (WT-en) Pashley 18:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)

 * Delete - What Pashley said. (WT-en) Texugo 19:44, 12 December 2007 (EST)

 * Redirect both. ~ 58.8.4.20 14:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Tips For Safe Swimming While In Goa and Goa's Natural Wonders
More by the same prolific contributor. I've already merged the relevant material from the first article so it's ready for quick-deletion, but the second might have some stand-alone value. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 20:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: both deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Travel Slovenia
I would have usually speedy-deleted this one, but there seems to be a mood in the air that we should run the vfd process more often, so here it is. I'm pretty sure there is no use to this article beyond a travel agency advert. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:00, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted - Convince me why I shouldn't have. (WT-en) Texugo 18:46, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Tour guide
Conflicts with Project:Internal_links ~ 203.144.143.8 05:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:48, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Bobmarleyweed.jpg
A license reading expert should check this out but it doesn't seem okay to me.--(WT-en) Wandering 11:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. I'd say it obviously violates the intent of their "managed rights" license. For all I know a lawyer could find a loophole, but we don't want to play that game. I'd support speedy deletion. (WT-en) Pashley 09:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:53, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Review of Related Studies of Java
per Project:What is an article? ~ 203.144.143.8 05:16, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:59, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Lassimaking.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 58.8.4.20 13:23, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:04, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Buddhist Destinations in India
Created with 100% commercial/copyvio content from http://www.shashitours.com/lumbini-budh-pil-11.html ~ 203.144.143.8 05:42, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Image:India call center 1016.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 58.8.4.20 13:23, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:28, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Image:EmpireBuilder.jpg
Copyvio (screenshot of http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/oct07/P07.pdf) ~ 58.8.4.20 13:23, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:32, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Delhi to banglore
Per Project:What is an article? ~ 58.8.4.20 06:42, 17 December 2007 (EST)

 * As it stands, it is an obvious delete. Delhi to Bangalore written as an itinerary and using the itinerary template, would be possible. (WT-en) Pashley 08:22, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:16, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Miramar Beach
A beach of the state capital Panaji shouldn't get its own article per Project:What is an article?.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 06:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 * It does not rate its own article unless, as on other Goan beaces, there are accomodations. I'm OK with a delete, but we should redirect to Panaji if the name is well enough known people that people might search for it. That seems somewhat likely to me since people navigate Goa by beach names -- Calangute, Anjuna, etc. Whether or not we redirect, the info on this beach goes in the "get out" section of Panaji. (WT-en) Pashley 08:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect seems right. We should probably codify guidance (if it's not out there already) to do redirects for non-destinations with famous/well-known names. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:28, 1 January 2008 (EST)
 * It is out there, last paragraph of Project:What_is_an_article%3F. Is that the right place? (WT-en) Pashley 23:53, 1 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yup, I just missed it. Redirect coming, and we'll close this. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:00, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Panaji. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Image:V go'-l-ikut fi.jpg
No image. Speedy delete?--(WT-en) Wandering 16:29, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:58, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Kovalambeach.jpg
Licence violation. This image is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.

 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Tatata7 02:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. It's a pity, as it's a nice shot and it would be good to be able to use more things like this from flickr, but the non-commercial verbiage is a show stopper. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:51, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:43, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Logo 73df2c.jpg
Copyvio ~ 58.8.4.20 13:23, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * See also subsequent related comments at Talk:Laurentides.

 * Delete. We don't usually include logos in articles, whether they're copyvios or not. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:54, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Russian River Wineries
Not an article, could be an itinerary, but not listed as such and not developed since March 2007. (WT-en) Morph 14:45, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine
I created this article way back in 2004 against some opposition, and after three years, I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong -- the Eat sections in Malaysia and Singapore both just keep growing. So I'm going to roll the content back into those articles, and ask that this be nuked. (Or maybe redirected to South-East Asia so we don't lose any Google/mirror/cache brownie points.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
 * keep. Singapore, in particular, has a foodie culture (or a food obsession) and the article is of interest to travelers seeking to understand what Singapore food is all about. It can, perhaps, be fleshed out with more information on where to eat (I don't mean specific restaurants but rather text that explains the 'food stall' culture of Singapore), but, even as it is, it is of interest.--(WT-en) Wandering 13:28, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Merge and redirect. I agree the info is of interest, I think he's saying that he realized it belongs in the "Eat" sections of Malaysia and Singapore, and doesn't need its own separate article. He's moving the info there before deleting, it won't be lost :)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 03:02, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I still think it should be a separate article. It is not necessarily of interest to all travelers but is directed at foodies. Why overload the Singapore article?--(WT-en) Wandering 10:38, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree. Also, since it applies to both Singapore and Malaysia, why have two copies? (WT-en) Pashley 19:46, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * a) Because every other country on WT has its cuisine info on the same page. There was a whomping big "See Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine for details" link at the top of Singapore#Eat, but most of the content had been readded (and hence duplicated) by well-meaning contributors, despite my occasional crackdown attempts.
 * b) Because food in Singapore and Malaysia is not the same. Very similar, yes, but there are tons of small differences (and a few large ones, eg. "Hokkien mee" means entirely different dishes) that can only sensibly be covered on separate pages. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:17, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. Provided content has been merged, I think this content should be directly on the country pages' eat sections, as it is for any other country article I can think of. Were the cuisines identical, perhaps we should keep the article, but I'll trust Jani's opinion that they are sufficiently different. I don't think a redirect makes sense, since it would want to point to both Malaysia and Singapore. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 * Question: Might it make sense to set up a class of Travel topics on cuisines, with this (or possibly one article on each of the two cuisines) as the exemplar? The fact that we've sat on this one for so long implies to me that we're uncomfortable with deleting it, yet there is no precedent to keep it.  Let's discuss one last time, then make a decision. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:29, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:18, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Como west
This needs to either be deleted or redirected (to Sydney? - I already did that, but it's been reverted), or else moved to Como West. ~ 203.144.143.4 17:29, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:34, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Caledonian Canal
per wiaa ~ 203.144.143.8 05:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)
 * Any chance this could/should be turned into an Itinerary? My wife and I cycled parts of the Caledonian Canal some years ago and had a great deal of fun, but I'm not sure a sensible Itinerary article featuring the Canal could be constructed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Patnem Beach
Another beach — (WT-en) NJR_ZATalk  Monday,  29, 2024 SAST

 * Keep if you can sleep there. Travellers ask "which beach did you stay on?", not "which town", so many Goan beaches are valid article titles. (WT-en) Pashley 07:06, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * However, lacking anything that says that this beach has hotels, I don't see grounds for keeping the article. I'd say redirect to Goa until somebody sorts through the beaches and makes real articles of the destination.  Same applies for the next beach below. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)

 * Keep & redirect to Palolem. "has restaurants but no hotels as yet" ~ 58.8.213.154 13:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept & redirected to Palolem. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Sauble Beach
Another beach — (WT-en) NJR_ZATalk  Monday,  29, 2024 SAST
 * Redirect for now; see previous comment. The pre-banner text was pure touting and has no business here.  It does, however, establish that there's lodging on/near this particular beach, so it may pass the you-can-sleep-there test. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (EST)

 * Keep & redirect to Bruce Peninsula ~ 58.8.213.154 14:00, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept & redirect to Bruce Peninsula ~ 203.144.143.4 10:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Language tourism & Spanish language tourism
Both have previously been deleted at least once already. Delete again? Or keep as Travel activities? ~ 203.144.143.4 16:05, 17 December 2007 (EST)

 * Delete . I think I was the one to delete these earlier as non-articles. They are plausibly travel topics, but currently lack any useful information, just fluff. And I'm not convinced there is anything useful to be said on this matter, speaking as someone who does travel for the purpose of language acquisition. If you want to learn language X, go spend time in country X. Any practical information beyond that becomes a guide to "how to learn languages," which seems beyond the scope of Wikivoyage to me. While language certainly is a reason to travel, I don't see a practical purpose for a travel topic about this motivation. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:55, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. They are valid travel topics. We should keep them, as we do with many stub articles, and see if they develop. An article on the other side of language travel, Teaching English, was once vfd'd and is now a guide, almost star. (WT-en) Pashley 21:26, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * There's lots they could cover: If I want to learn Spanish, what are the differences in cost, accent, etc. between Spain, Argentina, etc.? Which schools are good? In interesting cities? On good beaches? Which have courses specifically for business Spanish? (WT-en) Pashley 21:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * Fair enough, I might have been being shortsighted. I think the generic Language tourism should be delimited, though, to a basic index of specific language tourism articles (which right now only includes the stub Spanish one). I suppose I could cobble together a decent article of this nature for Russian.
 * Only one other point, though—I don't like the name "Language Tourism," as it seems neo-logismy to me. Wouldn't Learning Spanish abroad be better? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:05, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * I like Learning Spanish abroad much better as well. Tourism is one reason to travel, language learning is another. (WT-en) Texugo 23:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

 * Surely a single-item "Language tourism" index should be a sub-section of the relevent "Travel topics" index, at least until it grows too long to fit there.
 * How about redirecting Language tourism to a "Learning languages abroad" section on the Travel activities page? ~ 203.144.143.4 01:10, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Sounds good to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Me too.(WT-en) Texugo 01:56, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Me three.(WT-en) Pashley 02:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Done. ~ 58.8.2.192 15:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept & redirected. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:54, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Omkareshwar
This is a single temple which I feel doesn't match our Project:What is an article policy.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 00:33, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. It is an island town with a temple that is (apparently) an important pilgrimage site. There is at least one place to stay, perhaps more.--(WT-en) Wandering 09:48, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Quick check (LP India) reveals three additional places to stay on the island and a couple of other interesting sights too. Would love to go there!--(WT-en) Wandering 10:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Hmm, yes you are right. However... Is Omkareshwar the actual name of the village? What about the other big temple served by the facilities on this island? I considered a redirect to an article for the island itself, but I can't be sure what the name of that is either. (WT-en) Texugo 22:34, 21 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keep. It is definitely the name of the place – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept ~ 203.144.143.4 11:03, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Guia de turismo de Miami
Linkspammer created ~ 203.144.143.4 14:29, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy delete since it is a sentence in Spanish which is unlikely to be searched for by an English language user. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Orange county gangs
Vandal-created ~ 203.144.143.6 16:21, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) Nick 10:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Image:SL4.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.4 11:56, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Wandering 12:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) 2old 12:24, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 10:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Fgvnjfgmk.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.4 12:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) 2old 12:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Wandering 12:37, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 10:17, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Image:FrenchmenStAnne06Marigny29.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.4 12:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) 2old 12:30, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. Though 'recognizable' is a strong word here! --(WT-en) Wandering 12:37, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 10:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Image:MidCityBrocattosOpenInside.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.4 12:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) 2old 12:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) Wandering 12:37, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 12:59, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Foot Ball Sialkot.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.4 04:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 13:13, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Head Marala.jpg
Copyvio ~ 203.144.143.4 04:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 13:13, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Shaoxingyangtsefly.jpg
Copyvio ~ 203.144.143.4 09:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 13:13, 15 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:203.144.143.4
All non-vandal content (two items, both from 2006) has been moved/archived.

Thanks. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:45, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Changed back to standard anon talk message --(WT-en) Nick 03:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Bluebellrailway.jpg
Copyvio - ? ~ 203.144.143.4 01:26, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 02:01, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Image:MTR routemap.jpg
Copyvio - http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/train/system_map_pop_up.html ~ 58.8.5.2 01:04, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 02:37, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Diecaishan.jpg
No license specified; tag for over 4 months. ~ 203.144.143.6 18:04, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Duplicates wts:Image:Diecaishan.jpg ~ 203.144.143.6 18:18, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 09:47, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Justine for wiki.JPG
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.6 13:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

 * "Delete".--(WT-en) Wandering 16:09, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 10:02, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Aurora Watching in Tromsø
Unless we want a similar article for every town from which the Northern Lights can be seen, I think this can be deleted, along with the two redirects created for it, Aurora Watching in Tromso and Aurora watching in Tromso. Most of the information here is not location-specific and can be merged into the Northern Lights article if it's not already there, and that which is location-specific will easily fit on the Tromsø page.
 * Merge and delete (WT-en) Texugo 00:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted after the little useful info in there was merged with Tromsø --(WT-en) Nick 10:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Image:463343669 65c4174388.jpg
cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 ~ 203.144.143.6 18:25, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Already Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 10:18, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Mankameshwar Temple
An attraction rather than a destination, so it does not get its own article. (WT-en) Pashley 06:44, 24 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keep and redirect to Agra ~ 203.144.143.6 07:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. There are many Mankameshwar Temples, many well known, and we'll have to add a disambiguation page for the redirects. I don't think it is an important enough destination for that. (BTW, aren't we supposed to wait 14 days before taking action?)--(WT-en) Wandering 23:41, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. An attraction, not a destination, but did somebody jump the gun, W?  I don't see it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:03, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * It was redirected and then reverted. --(WT-en) Wandering 15:34, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 10:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Japan region maps

 * en:Image:Japan hokkaido map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan tohoku map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan kanto map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan chubu map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan kinki map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan chugoku map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan shikoku map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan kyushu map small.png
 * en:Image:Japan okinawa map small.png

The images listed above were copied from WP/Commons. Recently admin of commons started to change licensing tag of these images from "PD" to "Copyrighted free use", and I also started the same on shared:. So please remove (delete) them from en: and use images on shared:. -- (WT-en) Tatata7 04:29, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted and image pages and pages linking to the images purged --(WT-en) Nick 02:37, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Felucca

 * "Delete". Not suitable for an article. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Unsure, but incline to keep. Not a destination for sure, but is there a reason why feluccas and other things like them are less of a topic than cruise ships? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Keep, but rename... cruise ship articles are pretty controversial already, I don't think I would keep it on those grounds if the article was just about feluccas in general, but it's set up as an itinerary, and I think it's a pretty popular one... I'm sure the info could just as easily be put into the get in / get out sections of Cairo and Luxor, but I don't think it hurts to arrange this itinerary also, as long as it remains an itinerary and doesn't turn into a travel topic about feluccas ;) I vote to rename to Take a felucca down the Nile, or something similar – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:58, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Keep, but rename. "Felucca cruises on the Nile"?  Felucca cruises are big in Egypt and, as an itinerary, it has the makings of a decent article already. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * Just Nile cruises I think. Feluccas are one option, but there are also bigger boats. I'd suggest one itinerary article covering all waterborne possibilities. (WT-en) Pashley 08:20, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * Or perhaps follow the pattern set by Along the Yangtze river and Along the Yellow river, use Along the Nile? (WT-en) Pashley 08:40, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * Nile cruises is a little to general. Felucca rides and bigger Nile cruises are geared toward different sets of travelers ($5 per night vs. $40+) and are arranged in different ways.  Combining them could get unwieldy.  I would vote to rename it for easy linking from relevant articles, e.g. "Do: take a felucca cruise on the Nile"  (WT-en) Merrywanderer 10:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * I don't think "Nile cruises" is too general at all. A sensible way to structure the article would be to put common considerations together (e.g. "Stay safe" will be nearly independent of how large a boat you're on) and then break out sections for feluccas, high-end cruises, etc.  The existing article could serve as the core for that, so I'm with Jani: rename this article to Nile Cruises, use the good work you already did as the starting point, and start adding things as alternatives to feluccas are developed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * I disagree with you a bit about their similarity (Understand, Prepare, and Get In will be different), but I won't argue too much about combining them. Perhaps the name "Nile Cruise" would be better for linking (e.g. "Do: take a Nile cruise" or "Get In: take a Nile cruise from Aswan").
 * Nile Cruise is too broad. There is a huge difference between taking one of those big cruise boat trips along the Nile from Cairo to Aswan and taking a felucca ride along the Nile (usually from Luxor to Aswan, I think). Somewhat akin to the differences between Newtonian and Quantum Mechanics. A 'Felucca journey up the Nile' would be a great addition to the itinerary library while a Nile Cruise travel topic (can't really be an itinerary) would be just ho-hum.--(WT-en) Wandering 14:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'd say Along the Nile would be good itinerary topic, but no-one's started that yet. I thought this might be the first chunk of that, based on someone above talking about "put into the get in / get out sections of Cairo and Luxor". Looking at the actual article, I was wrong; this has much narrower scope. So forget about Along the Nile; maybe someone will do it later, but that's not our question here. Also forget about Nile cruise since that would be confusing — does it mean feluccas around Aswan or big boats Cairo-Luxor, or something else down in Sudan?
 * So then the question is what to do with the Felucca article. Is it really localised enough that we can just merge the text into Aswan's "get out" section and redirect the original? Or should we keep the article, possibly re-titled, and link to it from Aswan, Luxor, perhaps other places? I lean to the latter, but don't know the area well enough to be sure. (WT-en) Pashley 18:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)

 * I'm a little confused as to where the above conversation ended up, but it was good around the part when we were leaning towards keeping this Felucca itinerary and renaming it. The only reason I don't like "Nile cruises" is that it doesn't sound like an itinerary, and would possibly lead to lame copies like "Atlantic cruises". If it's only covering Feluccas on the nile, it would be nice if it had felucca in the name, or not if it's going to describe more than one way to do the journey – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * I vote for a 'felucca' and 'nile' itinerary. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:28, 4 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, I vote to rename as "Felucca cruise on the Nile" (WT-en) Merrywanderer 15:31, 6 January 2008 (EST)

 * I moved to felucca cruise on the Nile (WT-en) Merrywanderer 00:27, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Renamed to Felucca cruise on the Nile and made an itinerary. Original name left as a redirect --(WT-en) Nick 02:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)

WWOOF
WTF not an WT article subject. (WT-en) 2old 16:23, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Speedy Delete. (WT-en) 2old 16:23, 28 December 2007 (EST)

 * Redirect to Making a difference which already covers WWOOF. Someone who wants to volunteer on organic farms might search for "WWOOF" here, so it is worth a redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 04:44, 29 December 2007 (EST)

 * WWOOF is a not-for-profit organisation that helps people travel cheaply (because they work in exchange for their food and accommodation) and make meaningful connections with the local population (because they're staying in people's homes). It's particularly popular with young people (gap years etc) who don't have a lot of money to travel and want to do something meaningful with their time (ie, volunteering). In what way does such an organisation not merit inclusion on a website devoted to travel? (And, by the way, there has been a similar article about WWOOF on the French version of this website since March 2007 without attracting any such problems.)

 * Merge and redirect to making a difference... nobody is saying that it isnt relavent info, it just doesnt need its own article... a small paragraph describing it and a link to the website is about all we really need to do here, right? we arent going to start listing farms and such, thats what the wwoof website is for. p.s., 2old, theres really no reason to speedy delete most things, 14 days isnt that long, and it is a good opportunity to inform new users of our policies, etc – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:29, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think this is the second visit by WWOOF, if not, a similar article was started about a year ago and came up for VFD, I did not participate in those comments, but I thought it had been decided to delete it. (WT-en) 2old 09:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 * Searching does not turn it up in vfd archives. (WT-en) Pashley 19:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Merge and redirect, as Cacahuate suggests. This seems clear. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:24, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Making a difference --(WT-en) Nick 03:12, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Confederate States of America
Vandalism. But, since it was a while back I'm putting my speedy delete on the record.--(WT-en) Wandering 23:24, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 06:01, 18 January 2008 (EST)

UK Cities

 * Delete. Lists of cities are pretty useless here, theres a shortlist on the UK page, and others should be on the relevant subpages – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 11:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Unless we want lists of cities for every country and region in the world. Not much point in that IMHO. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I'd Say get rid of it, its pretty pointless since every area will mention the cities there in more details and its just another page to clutter up wikivoyage

(WT-en) Prof Jack 06:48, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 06:14, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Dawson (New Mexico)
This looks to have been created in good faith, but according to both Wikipedia and this first-hand account, Dawson is a ghost town (on private land) with zero sites open to the public other than the cemetery. Between this and the fact that it's so far out in the boonies that I can't find anything to redirect it to, just delete rather than merge/redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keep & redirect to Northeast New Mexico ~ 203.144.143.4 01:19, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. There's nothing in the article which makes it worth redirecting. Just delete it. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 02:03, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 06:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Image:DSC5928.jpg
Conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.4 12:46, 17 December 2007 (EST)

 * Keep. This is from the official Laurentides Tourism site, and they've cleared their content on Talk:Laurentides. (WT-en) Jpatokal 14:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Don't we have to independently verify that the content has been cleared? Or, is a statement to the effect from the OP sufficient to ensure that wikivoyage is not in copyright violation?--(WT-en) Wandering 23:37, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * I don't see a verification requirement. Anybody?  The language on the talk page looks sufficient for a keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:57, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Please note that this image has been VFD'd because it conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 61.7.183.208 03:17, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Right, got that, but it may be -- I'm honestly not sure -- that the model-release issue goes away with the clearance given by the tourism site (who presumably had to deal with the issue when they set up the site). Opinions? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:21, 6 January 2008 (EST)

 * At the end of the day, it's always the publisher's responsibility to check the model releases. Wikivoyage's type of usage has a pretty low bar for this, as we're not imputing any opinions or trying to directly sell anything via our pictures, so I think we're OK with the uploader's statement that the content is OK. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Project:Image policy says: "In general, we don't really want pictures of travellers or other people in Wikivoyage. Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform." - I don't understand why this doesn't apply to this image.

Also, if we can't be anywhere near certain that a copyrighted image has been legitimately uploaded, how on earth can we know for sure that model releases, the details of which we know nothing about and which are only "presumed" to exist, apply for use here?

In any case, the "permission" on Talk:Laurentides is for text, not images.

In addition, the licence statement "This picture is not protected by copyright. The uploader owns the image and has released all rights. This applies worldwide." applied to this image is obviously untrue. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:52, 9 January 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. Our Project:Image policy is not just about model releases, it is also about what kinds of images belong in a professional travel guide. IMO, there is no place in our guides for promotional "gee-golly look at these guys having fun in location X!" type of photos. The only real reason to keep such an image would be if it were of a user and they were using it on their own user page, but that is not the case here.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 06:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Image:F0001000005.jpg
Copyvio (see http://www.travellerspoint.com/guide/Laurentians/) ~ 203.144.143.4 14:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. Clear.  See discussion above, and there are no problems with model releases, recognizable people, etc., in this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:22, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 08:15, 18 January 2008 (EST)

LGBT rights in the Middle States
Per Project:What is an article (WT-en) 2old 13:02, 19 January 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) 2old 13:02, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy delete non-place article created by vandal. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:36, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Mac
Vandal created. ~ 203.144.143.4 14:17, 7 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Hot
Also vandal created - see above. Also contribs - Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Jimsamson00. Probably "speedy" if you have such things :) Cheers --(WT-en) Herby  talk thyme 14:46, 7 January 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. There is such a place (I've been there) so I've already redirected it to the appropriate region article. ~ 203.144.143.4 14:56, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. I think 203.144.143.4 needs to make a stronger case than "I've been there". When I google "Hot Thailand," no prizes for guessing what kinds of sites show up. --(WT-en) Wandering 15:26, 7 January 2008 (EST)

 * When I redirected it, I also added a WikiPedia link . ~ 203.144.143.4 15:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)

 * So is it Amphoe Hot or just plain Hot? Wikipedia seems to use Amphoe Hot as the article name (even though Amphoe apparently means district and would seem redundant). If it is a legit district then it should have its own page rather than being a redirect. We could call it Amphoe Hot as wikipedia does but that'd mean a disambiguation page or a redirect from Hot to Amphoe Hot (as wikipedia does).--(WT-en) Wandering 18:42, 7 January 2008 (EST)

 * It's a sub-district of Chiang Mai Province, and sub-districts of Thai provinces (there are over 900 of them) are skipped in the Project:Geographical hierarchy. The only reason to make this an article as opposed to a redirect would be if Tambon Hot (as opposed to Amphoe Hot) warranted it, and it doesn't. ~ 203.144.143.4 01:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * At the least, I suggest you put in a reference to Amphoe Hot in the Chiang Mai (province) page. A redirect makes no sense to me if there is absolutely no reference to the originating page in the terminating page. Is there some sort of Redirect policy? Or, even a list of redirects? --(WT-en) Wandering 13:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * Done; Project:How to redirect a page; Special:Listredirects. ~ 203.144.143.4 15:17, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * cheers mate :-) --(WT-en) Wandering 15:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: kept ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Votes for deletion

 * "Speedy delete" and left a note in the (anon) user's talk page. (Does it make sense to have a separate Project:Speedy delete record where speedy deletes can be recorded for review (rather than cluttering up this article)? --(WT-en) Wandering 22:28, 12 January 2008 (EST)

 * (see also Project:Votes for deletion ~ 203.144.143.4 23:22, 12 January 2008 (EST))

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Project:12 January 2008
Spamvertiser created ~ 203.144.143.4 23:43, 12 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Image talk:Hajj1.gif
Redundant page ~ 203.144.143.4 14:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted. A question in the text but no image. --(WT-en) Wandering 15:16, 14 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Http./www.liveinasia.com
Per Project:What is an article? ~ 58.8.17.160 01:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted. (WT-en) Texugo 02:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Brittney spears

 * Delete Not sure if it satisfies the "can you sleep there" criterion.--(WT-en) Wandering 14:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 * Delete - Might be able to sleep there, but from what I read in the tabloids we should probably just leave it out as per our Project:Avoid_negative_reviews policy --(WT-en) Nick 02:31, 17 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Www.hqhostelxian.moonfruit.com
Per Project:What is an article (see also Xian). ~ 203.144.143.4 04:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Tam Coc
Content was copyvio from here. Destination is a cave complex. Perhaps a redirect would be better? Otherwise delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:08, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * I've just created Ninh Binh so that I could redirect it to there, which I've now done (but I've not removed the tag). ~ 203.144.143.4 04:17, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * My only objection is that Ninh Binh makes no reference to Tam Coc. A line about Tam Coc (a cave complex?) would be nice.--(WT-en) Wandering 13:39, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * "Tam Coc - a nearby cave complex" added to Ninh Binh per WT:WYCSI ~ 203.144.143.4 15:25, 8 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: kept ~ 203.144.143.4 17:33, 20 January 2008 (EST)

User:(WT-en) Eco84 & Talk:Sonoma
Spambot created ~ 203.144.143.4 20:57, 18 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy deleted ~ 203.144.143.4 17:33, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Pazhamthottam

 * Delete. Looks like it is a small village with no accommodation. Can't sleep there.--(WT-en) Wandering 12:57, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 07:01, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Image:EXCURSIONSvtttttt.jpg
Copyvio ~ 203.144.143.4 14:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 00:35, 21 January 2008 (EST)

 * Copyvio with what? Where is the original? --(WT-en) Nick 08:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 07:15, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Travel agent
Per Project:What is an article? ~ 124.157.250.159 09:00, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 07:31, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Icc5.jpg
Copyvio ~ 124.157.250.159 09:10, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 07:45, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Image001.jpg

 * Delete. Advert, violates Image policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:02, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 02:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Fountain.jpg
No copyright/licence information. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:16, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 02:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Cenotes of the Yucatan Peninsula
An anonymous user nominated this page without comment. It does, however, appear to be a feature rather than a destination, as the possibility of finding lodging in an underwater cave seems somewhat dim. Besides, the various caves are not physically grouped together.
 * Delete and put the general information in the Yucatán Peninsula article and the specific information in the article of the nearest city.(WT-en) Texugo 01:56, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * And on second look there is already an itinerary article for Cenotes of the Yucatán that could also absorb any additional information.(WT-en) Texugo 02:01, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * So Merge and redirect? (WT-en) Pashley 02:23, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect for sure, with optional merge, but not clear to where. Might "Cenotes of the Yucatan" be the correct root article, consistent with our naming conventions as regards diacriticals?  Unless I miss something, the diacritical-free name should be preferred under most conditions. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Merge and Redirect Move photos to other pages. The Cenotes of the Yucatán article is a good one and I can imagine helpful to a visitor.
 * Delete Photo's have no license. 65.24.110.210 15:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * Keep & redirect to Cenotes of the Yucatán. See also . ~ 58.8.213.154 14:15, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: '''Merged into Cenotes of the Yucatan. Redirected.''' --(WT-en) Wandering 14:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Image:0-Plan-NAN3NB.png & Image:0-Plan-NAN3NBres.png & Image:NANMap.png
Copyvios. ~ 203.144.143.6 19:18, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Image:California.San-Diego.Tijuana-Border.78.400.jpeg
"GFDL 1.2" ~ 203.144.143.4 23:10, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. License apparently changed to cc by sa 1.0.--(WT-en) Wandering 17:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Metro 4 logo.jpg
Logo ~ 124.157.250.159 09:17, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:09, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Western area and Southern region

 * Delete - When I think of cardinal directions given absolutely no context, the first thing I think of just doesn't happen to be Sierra Leone. How about you? (WT-en) Texugo 22:30, 21 December 2007 (EST)

 * Western area - Delete ~ 203.144.143.6 08:36, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Western area = Delete --(WT-en) Wandering 16:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * Southern region - Keep and redirect to South ~ 203.144.143.6 08:36, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Western area deleted. Southern region redirected to South. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Mufasa
Spambot created; no such place. ~ 203.144.143.4 01:47, 21 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy ~ 203.144.143.4 00:10, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Project:Using Wikivoyage guides for travel
Apparently created in error. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:25, 26 January 2008 (EST)

 * Speedy deleted (again). This article was talked about being created, but nothing ever done about it... it's been created a few times by a spammer, but I think we should keep speedying it until someone actually writes an article about it. If you're curious what it was originally intended to be, it was in response to a writer who did a trip using only WT guides, but made some fundamental mistakes such as not realizing there were district articles to our large city guides... and wrote a bad article about us because of it. So this page is meant to be an idiots guide to Wikivoyage – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:53, 26 January 2008 (EST)

outcome: speedy ~ 203.144.143.4 00:10, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Barcelona/Born

 * Merge and redirect to Barcelona/Ciutat Vella. As we haven't reached consensus on borders of existing districts in Barcelona yet, creating new subdistrict articles will only complicate the situation in districtifying Barcelona. (WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:06, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Merged with Barcelona and Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 15:35, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Walking around the New Town in Warsaw & Warsaw/New Town
The first is a completely blank itinerary, created September 2006. Seems the only reason it was created was to fix a broken redirect from the second, which was previously an empty outline article. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 16:20, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Hattiesburg spotlight.jpg

 * Delete Recognizable people in image. --(WT-en) Wandering 23:15, 12 January 2008 (EST)

 * Delete - conflicts with Project:Image policy ~ 203.144.143.4 23:26, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 16:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Image:Kedainiai5. 2007-05-06.jpg + Image:Kedainiai12. 2007-05-06.jpg + Image:Kedainiai14. 2007-05-06.jpg
Uploaded to Wikivoyage as CC-BY-SA-all + GFDL, but GFDL only at source (Wikimedia Commons). ~ 58.8.212.199 17:22, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 16:29, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Skiing in Lebanon/... x 6
Skiing in Lebanon/Cedars Skiing in Lebanon/Faqra Skiing in Lebanon/Faraya Mzaar Skiing in Lebanon/Laqlouq Skiing in Lebanon/Qanat Bakish Skiing in Lebanon/Zaarour

Content has been moved to Skiing in Lebanon. ~ 203.144.143.4 09:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 16:35, 28 January 2008 (EST)

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


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2009

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

Dieng Plateau
Per Project:What is an article?, this content should probably be merged to the appropriate city or region article, and the page turned into a redirect. But I'm not at all familiar with the area, so I'll leave this decision to the vfd page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)
 * Hmm-m. I suspect the Dieng Plateau is better known under that name than the main town in the area, Wonosobo. It might make more sense to keep this article at Dieng Plateau and redirect Wonosobo there. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:51, 15 December 2008 (EST)
 * Yes, especially since we do not yet have a Wonosobo article. (WT-en) Pashley 04:05, 16 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. This blog, by someone who's been there, implies that you can sleep there, although the "Franglish" is such that it's difficult to be sure.  For probably the hundredth time, I say: we really need some new model for handling locales that are overwhelmingly rural, yet may have lodging, etc., outside the towns ("destinations") and interspersed among the boonies. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:07, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:10, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Image:Osaka Subway Map.png
Uploaded as unprotected by copyright, but I want to challenge that. As someone pointed out on the talk page, the map is pretty out of date anyway, but in addition, if you compare it to the current map at http://www.kotsu.city.osaka.jp/foreign/english/subway/img/map.pdf, it is quite obvious that it was originally copied from there, and the site is posted as copyright, all rights reserved.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo
 * Delete (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 21:45, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:17, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Makiki
My hunch was that we should redirect this one to Honolulu, but a persistent user keeps turning it into a rather well developed article. Should this be a district of Honolulu? A separate city article? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:26, 9 December 2008 (EST)
 * Sources seem to differ as to whether it's a "neighborhood" in Honolulu or a "suburb" of Honolulu. Either way, I feel fairly strongly that the article shouldn't be deleted, although it might be renamed/redirected.  Let's do some research on this one; at the very least, Honolulu is probably big enough to merit some districting, and this could be a start. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:33, 9 December 2008 (EST)
 * Gentleman, I am a native of Honolulu and went to school for 13 years at Punahou (the same school that President-elect Obama attended from 1971 to 1979). That school happens to be located in Makiki which I can assure you is an old, established neighborhood--most definitely not a suburb by any stretch of the imagination. Makiki is in the heart of Honolulu, about a mile from downtown (West), two miles from Wakiki (South) and about two miles (east) of the University of Hawaii.  It is certainly not a separate city! You may want to consult a map.  Given that you do not live here, what you are not aware of is that Makiki is starting to generate a tremendous amount of interest and tourist traffic because of its association with Barack Obama, who was born in Kapiolani Hospital (in Makiki) and grew up a few blocks from the high school that we both graduated from. Frankly there was not a lot of interest in this neighborhood from outsiders until Obama burst on the scene. This is a very well researched piece.  What's more Makiki deserves the recognition. -- (WT-en) Ian Brizdle
 * Thanks to (WT-en) Ian Brizdle for the clarification. Although he has clarified the situation, I think he has made a case for incorporation of this article in the Honolulu article. Something like the Columbus, Ohio breakdown may be appropriate. Merge and Redirect into and to Honolulu. (WT-en) 2old 13:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)
 * With this background, I think the course of action is clear: Rename and move to Honolulu/Makiki (which will automatically generate the redirect) and modify the root Honolulu article to point to it as a district. The rudiments of a districting scheme for Honolulu are already taking shape anyway; may as well help it along.  (You fit 13 years at Punahou into the period from 1971 to 1979?  I'm impressed. :-) ) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

 * Sorry for the confusion, I graduated in '98 and attended Punahou since Kindergarten. Obama attended '71 to '79.  My error with the . -- (WT-en) Ian Brizdle

Outcome: Moved to Honolulu/Makiki. (WT-en) Pashley 22:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Judean Desert
Nice start to an article, unfortunately this region badly overlaps with our existing Dead Sea, West Bank and Negev regions. Redirect to West Bank...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:24, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Not to be disrespectful, but I think you lack a certain knowledge in the geography of Israel, and I don't think you should automaticly propose to delete regions, just as I shouldn't delete regions in France or Syria, without even discussing and asking about it BEFORE. Here are some explanations:

1 - "The Judean Desert is not a region.." The Judean desert was for thousands of years and still is a very clear geographic region. It is considered a region of its own in Israel, just like the Carmel, Gush-Dan, the Galilee and the Negev, unlike the West Bank, which is a political definition, and the Dead Sea, which is a lake, not a region. Only the Negev is another real region in Israel, and it BORDERS with the Judean Desert, it does not overlap it.

2 - "Its already written about in other articles.." As I said, the Judean desert is an actual a region in Israel, unlike the West Bank and the Dead Sea. The fact that it wasn't mentioned is wrong. And worse, now that it is mentioned, you wish to delete it because people just included it in the regions around it. Well, two wrongs won't make a right. Wikivoyage should bring the correct information about the diffrent regions in Israel, and we shouldn't redevide Israel as we see fit because someone already wrote about it somewhere.

3 - Dead Sea refrences If anything, we should delete the article "Dead Sea", it is not a region, it is a lake, and worse, its a lake between two diffrent regions in two countries. Its like creating an article about the Mediterranean Sea, or about the Lake Superior, though its the same lake, its devided into diffrent regions and diffrent countries, and travelers should get information about the region/country they are going to, not about the lake itself. It might be a helpful article, due to the fact that the Dead Sea is unique, but it should definatly not replace the articles about the actual regions it is located in, both in Israel and in Jordan.

4 - West Bank refrences The West-Bank is the a political region of a diverse area. It DOESN'T overlap the Judean Desert. The Judean Desert is partly in the west-bank(and btw, more than half of the Judean Desert is inside the "green line" and not in the west bank), like other geographical regions in Israel such as the Shephelah, the Judean Mountains, Jerusalem, the Lower Galilee and so on... because it is a political region, determaned by the truce lines set by Israel and Jordan in 1949. and furthermore, the Judean desert is populated mostly (with the exception of Jericho and small bedwin villages) by jewish communities and cities, and therefore even the travelers' experience is the same as inside the "green line", and not as in the arab cities of the west bank. So other than a political statement, there is absolutly no reason to move the Judean Desert article into the West Bank article.

5 - General overlaping and mistakes in the ISRAEL articles The regions that are written in the "Israel" article are not accurate and greatly overlap each other.... for example, the Jezreel valley and Beth-Shaan valley both have articles of their own, even though they are both parts of the Lower Galilee. The Sea of the Galilee also has an article of its own, even though again, its a lake not a region. The western coast of the sea is the Galilee, while the eastern coast belongs to the Golan heights region. My plan is to fix those overlaps and errors, and thats why I started by creating the Judean desert value, in hopes of giving the travelers in Israel good, true and reliable information, which will tell them more about the diffrent regions in Israel, with the historical and current status of each region, with good intresting pictures from the diffrent areas, and most importantly, clean from any political references, as much as possible. And as you can see, I gave information both on the southern part of the desert, like Ein-Gedi and Masada, and also about the northen part of the desert which is in the West-Bank, such as Jericho and Qumaran. From the travelers POV, and since there are no palestinian towns in the region (again besides Jericho), also from the Israelis and Palestinians POV, this region is the same as the Galilee or the Negev. The only diffrence is political, but this is not WikiPolitics, its Wikivoyage.

I hope you will help me to improve the ISRAEL articles, instead of just leaving them the way they are just because its already here regardless if its accurate or not.

(WT-en) Govrin 09:52, 16 December 2008 (EST)

 * Hi Govrin. I have a few comments.  First, while you're right that designations like "West Bank" are political in nature, we do sometimes need to make regions based on political boundaries.  You can't deny that the experience for a traveler is going to be different depending on whether he is in the west bank or not!
 * But of course, that isn't necessarily enough to justify using "West Bank" as a specific article title. What it seems you're proposing is a reorganization of the regions of Israel.  Rather than just go and create a new article for a region whose content is apparently covered (at least in part) in other articles, I would suggest you discuss the matter at Talk:Israel and garner support for a reorganization of the regions.  To do so, you should probably have a good idea of what those regions should be, keeping in mind that they should cover the entire area of Israel without overlaps or gaps.
 * Thanks for contributing to Wikivoyage, and for plunging forward!
 * -- (WT-en) LtPowers 10:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

 * Agreed with LtPowers. I could be argued into changing Israel's regions (esp. Dead Sea, as you note), but as it stands right now, the cities you list as being in the Judean Desert, namely Ein Gedi, Jericho and Arad, are already covered in the Dead Sea, West Bank and Negev articles respectively.

 * I've opened a discussion on Talk:Israel, let's continue there and put this on hold for time being. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

i'm sorry, but you are simpley mistaking. I think as an Israeli for all my life, I have a more inside view about the regions in Israel and the diffrent atmospheres in the west bank and in the green line. The majority of the Judean desert, including the parts in the west bank, is considered to be Israel de facto. it has only jewish cities, and it is protected by barriers and the military. Traveling there is like traveling in Tel-Aviv or Haifa, its NOTHING like being in Hevron or Beth-Lehem. I should know, since as a native to this place, I traveled here more than other people and more than I myself traveled in other places. and either way, like i said, more than half of the Judean desert is outside the west bank.

As for the Dead Sea, like it or not, its simply not a region. Its not up to you and me to determan the regions, just like the Tibet article is based on the chinese government value of Tibet, and not by our standards. China decides its regions, Sweden decides its regions, and Israel decides its regions.

As for the coverage in other articles... I think its fairly stupid to assume that if the cities gathered here have values of their own, the region doesn't need to be explained. This is like deleting the value of "California", because places like LA and San-Diego have values of their own. This region is more than just those few chosen cities... sadly, instead of imrpoving and expand about it and give more information about the regions that are yet to be talked about, you prefer to shut it down and simply keep the old ones not because they are right, but because "they were here first".

anyway, I was highly disappointed by the very inactive and unincoraging approach of this community. I wondered why so many articles and values about diffrent countries and regions here are so low on information, if they even have anything. Now i know why. Sadly, i cannot help to develop a community that doesn't welcome development. I am deleting my article and the pictures i have posted, and i will no longer try to contribute here. I hope some day, you will understand that acting like this only damages wikivoyage, and keeps it to a limited group of "elite" people with limited knowledge.. instead of being the open project it should be.

cya

Outcome: Kept, but discussion continues at Talk:Israel.

Alicante Airport

 * Delete I've been through Alicante airport, and it's not really big enough to warrant an article under current policy. Also, the text on this page is about Madrid Airport, so is irrelevant anyway! (WT-en) Nrms 10:51, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Merge and redirect into the Alicante article. (WT-en) AHeneen 13:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. This was created by the same user who did Airport Madrid below - he's probably connected to the car hire service that's linked to in both. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:32, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. It's been more than 14 days. However, someone who knows the area should check to see if any of it is worth merging before it goes. (WT-en) Pashley 06:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * The only bits of info useful to the traveller are the distance from the town and destinations. These are covered in the Alicante article (at least serving airlines are included, but the Airport's page doesn't tell you which airline serves where, so the 2 can't be easily merged, unless someone really wants to try and research it all). The rest of the article is an airport history (not overly relevant to the traveller in the case of an airport) and services more relevant to aircraft operators, so outside the scope of Wikivoyage.
 * Think a straight Delete can be done. Only linking pages are teh vfd page and User:(WT-en) Sasha/temp (which is just a long list of pages!)
 * (WT-en) Nrms 06:25, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Image:34e1334.jpg
Orphaned, no license, recognizable person (WT-en) AHeneen 12:45, 25 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:19, 25 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 21:45, 25 December 2008 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Pashley 06:02, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:30, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Alpine pearls
I'm nominating this one for deletion just to see what happens. I don't think we generally have articles for tourism associations, do we? (WT-en) Texugo 07:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yah, thats not right, Delete. :) Keep smilin' (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge into Alps? It would seem a shame to lose this information about sustainable tourism in such a heavily visited region. (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I was going to say "keep", since I think it could become a viable article. Travel topic, perhaps? However, I Checked for copyvio and found the entire article is word-for-word from Wikipedia.
 * So now I say trash existing text, redirect this to the [Alps] article, and add a sentence or two and a link to alpinepearls.com there. That lets us put links to Alpine pearls in the articles for towns that are involved in the program. If someone later undoes the redirect and writes a real article on these pearls, that's OK too. (WT-en) Pashley 06:10, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * I speedied it, but immediately restored it. The text was written by a user with the same name on both sites; assuming it's the same person, it's not a copyright violation.  I say just redirect it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:39, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Texugo asked the right question, and there's no compelling affirmative answer. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * I'm starting to reconsider my position here. There is precedent for articles listing destinations bound by some notable, "official" distinction, e.g. UNESCO World Heritage List and UNESCO Creative Cities.  Is UNESCO less a "tourism association" than the people behind this, just because it's associated with the United Nations?  I now incline to keep, but let's discuss once more, then put it to bed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:52, 30 December 2008 (EST)
 * That's the right question, but it contains the word "generally" and this may be an exception. It is travel-related & Tarr3n makes a good point as well. It is not a destination or region in our usual senses, but the info seems worth having. I'm not sure if it should be a travel topic, a redirect to a short section in Alps, or what, but I do not think it's an outright delete. (WT-en) Pashley 23:13, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Consensus is to keep the information found here. A merge can be discussed on the talk page. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:18, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Ballena Marine National Park
New article, entire content apparently copied from another site. I'm not certain if the article itself should be deleted or not. (WT-en) Pashley 08:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * I'd say redirect it to South Costa Rica or Uvita for the time being. Even if you can sleep there, which isn't clear, it doesn't look huge enough to need its own article.  From the description, it sounds more like a day-attraction than a multi-day destination.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:09, 13 November 2008 (EST)

 * why does the other park have their info... this is the first Marine Park, one of the few places in the world where you can see the whales from the south and northern hemisphere... the info that i put there was my own, taken from one of my websites... if you take this out, than take out all th eother parks in the worls... you cannot sleep in any of the costa rican parks... but it is a travel destination...

so please put it back...

the rules are not clear... they say not to add links in the main page of costa rica... but they are alot... i add one and they take it down.... helloooooooooooooooooo

 * Learn how to not sound so whiny and how to use a signature (use for tildes, or see at the bottom SIGN YOUR NAME).  Also if you were a little more lenient, you'd see there are real reasons for this.  I don't get why you said "then take out all the other parks", does that mean you've worked extensively on every single park that has a travel guide on this website?  I find that very untrue!  You still need to learn some, and HELLO to you too;)!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 18:29, 14 November 2008 (EST).

 * There are two separate problems here. One is the text from another site. See my comments at User talk:(WT-en) Geinier for that.

 * The other question is whether this park gets its own article. As I said above, I don't know the answer on that. However, in general, parks don't get separate articles; see policy at Project:What_is_an_article?. Nobody's saying there should not be text for parks, just that usually it should be in a region or town article rather than a separate article on the park. Huge parks like Angkor Wat or Disneyland are exceptions.

 * In nearby Mexico we have an article on the Mayan_Riviera. At least two park articles for parks in that area were created, Xel-Ha and Xcaret, but because both are "attractions" rather than "destinations" in the Wikivoyage sense, both were changed to redirects to Mayan_Riviera, and some text moved there. Archived "vote for deletion" discussions of those are at Project:Votes_for_deletion/November_2007 and Project:Votes_for_deletion/October_2008.

 * My guess would be something like that is needed here, but I do not know the area, so I cannot say what. (WT-en) Pashley 08:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. Based on this resource, it looks like one can "sleep" there in a tent, if nothing else, and we've accepted other national parks in other countries with comparably rustic accommodations.  The bogus text isn't grounds for deletion; normal policy is to clean that up, rather than delete the article.  I'm going to Costa Rica in a few weeks and would use this article if it was in shape by then. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:38, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Delete as apparent copyvio. I've deleted it and recreated the article as a redirect to Uvita. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:24, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Images on Mongolia article
Image:Bogdakhaan.jpg - uploaded without licence specified Image:Zaisan.jpg - uploaded without licence specified Image:Flamesss.jpg - uploaded without licence specified Image:Flamesss2.jpg - uploaded without licence specified Image:Chinggis.jpg - Copyright violation, invalid license since it's not own work - Original image [here]
 * Delete We need a licence, uploader notified on talk page. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 00:04, 14 December 2008 (EST)
 * Copied to (WT-en) user page to try and get my point across, and the layout is not really in line with our manual of style + the info should go in Ulaan Bataar article. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 00:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)
 * Emailed user --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 00:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

 * I speedy-deleted the vodka bottle because of the bogus license. Delete all the rest too, unless licensing can be resolved. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:25, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Delete all as lacking source and license information. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 26 January 2009 (EST)

British Isles
Delete. This article is nothing more than a magnet for controversy. Just about every edit has been disputed, since the articles creation. Its useless as a disambig - who would really search for British Isles, and expect to be disamb'ed to Isle of Man, Ireland etc. Leave WIkipedia to argue what it means, we don't need it here. In policy terms, it should be deleted because it is not a destination, not a region, and there is no clear place to redirect it to. --(WT-en) Inas 18:11, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Keep It is a standard geographical term. It was proposed for deletion before and kept, see talk page. (WT-en) Pashley 18:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * What is the basis for the standard? See wikipedia British_Isles_naming_dispute .  The best standard they can quote there is a difctionary and British atlases.    Do we want a piece of this?  The last vfd ended in trying a disambig.  I support those who decided that it was worth a try, but it has clearly now failed.  Again, the question should not be if it is a standard term, but does it advance the guide, and help the traveler.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:11, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * You saying British Isles isn't a region is wrong. It is a geographical area of Britain/Ireland if my memory is correct.  Please be careful, because it does exist, the thing is, that there are multiple terms for these areas, although not specifically that whole are alike: Britain, UK, United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Ireland (incl N Ire), United K, Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Northern Ire., GB, etc.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 19:17, 18 December 2008 (EST).

 * Sorry - I mean it isn't a wikivoyage region, not that it isn't a region at all. It isn't one of the regions we have chosen to define as a wikivoyage region article.  Please take the time to read the wikipedia article, before you try to conclude what it contains. .  Thanks.   --(WT-en) Inas 19:30, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks! But my saying in what it is was correct  so there is no point in that truly.  Anyways, I think it's fine as a redirect as it is a commonly used term but it still isn't what were after.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 19:33, 18 December 2008 (EST).
 * Its fine to say it is a commonly used term - but what is it a commonly used term for? A redirect is only useful if it can redirect to something.  It is apparent there is no consensus on what to redirect it to, and it is going to continue to be a source of contested edits and reversions. We have to manage this stuff for some areas, because it essential information for the traveller.  But noone is going to travel to the British Isles and wonder where they will end up.  Its of no use to the traveller at all, and we don't want to be wikipedia.  To back up what you say, you should go to the article, and revert the latest change, which disagrees with the link you just posted.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:45, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * What change? It is usually a word used to describe Ireland and UK.  It isn't really travel related, but many people know it and people may type it up, where they get a disambungion page which is fine cause it links to all those places.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 20:03, 18 December 2008 (EST).
 * EE, it doesn't currently point to those places. The last change removed Ireland.  Have a look at the current article and the most recent changes.  If you feel it should include Ireland, I suggest you revert the change, and join in the fun.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * One of the few things I'm rather conservative about is geographical terms. For example, I prefer Calcutta and Burma to Kolkatta and Myanmar, though of course I want disambig pages for the other names. So as I see it, "British Isles" is a sensible thing to have a disambig for and of course the term includes Ireland; the whole point of it is to have name for Britain+Ireland+miscellaneous.
 * So if we keep it, it needs some rewriting. I'd be willing to have a shot at that. I think it can be made acceptable to all by drawing a clearer distinction between the mostly obsolete geographical term and the political divisions.
 * On the other hand, some folks do seem to object to the term and arguing about it is pointless. I will not object too strongly if the consensus is to delete. (WT-en) Pashley 20:32, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * ditto but i won't help cause you seem to get it. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 20:51, 18 December 2008 (EST).
 * I just feel bad about reverting a change that I feel was made by a contributor in good faith. I appreciate your offer to have a go at the page. --(WT-en) Inas 21:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. Per last time, this should be a disambig page that tells the traveler why the term is deprecated and then point the traveler in the right direction for info. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:08, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. But the situation is a little different this time—it is now a Wikivoyage region, although it has not yet been developed as one. If we decide to appease current political correctness, we could remove it from the hierarchy, but that's a discussion for Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. If left a disambiguation, though, it clearly should include Ireland. That's what the term British Isles has always meant, and the politics of it are not particularly relevant. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Keep. Disambiguation is critical here, and we don't want to leave someone hanging should they choose to search for this term.  If contentious editing is a problem, protect the page; the links within aren't going to change.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:46, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Hmm, I still say keep, but I'm not sure it should be a disambiguation page. Right now there's no good way to follow links from Europe to Ireland, because British Isles doesn't link to Ireland, even though Ireland IsIn the British Isles region!  I'm all for using another term if the Irish truly despise "British Isles", but we have to group them together somehow.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * (WT-en) Peter and (WT-en) LtPowers have it right. This issue is bigger than just a delete, due to the Europe regioning, so this article isn't really a candidate for deletion, and for now needs to include Ireland to avoid it being orphaned out of Europe.  Its clear that it can't just be a disambig page, which is what lead me down this path originally.  Linking to a disambig page is wrong at the best of times, but to link there from Europe is clearly an error.  In any event this dicussion needs to move to Talk:Europe/Hierarchy --(WT-en) Inas 22:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * I rewrote it. Comments on the actual rewrite solicited, here or on article talk page. Comment on broader issues to Talk:Europe/Hierarchy.(WT-en) Pashley 23:30, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Redirect but not sure where. Part of the problem with our clump of landmasses is that we have so many names... England/Wales/Scotland/N.I., Britain, Great Britain, British Isles, United Kingdom of whatever-we-are, etc. This means it is confusing for people from here (like myself) as well as travellers. Perhaps what we need is a single page that covers everything as a central "where to go next" and have the redirecting terms protected to prevent them from being changed (with a note on the relevant talk pages to explain why this is being done).

I know it sounds a fairly bureaucratic solution, but it may be the easiest way of aleviating the confusion? (WT-en) Nrms 07:08, 22 December 2008 (EST)

 * I think this is sort of silly, but if there is objections the only other term I really would find useful is British-Irish Isles, so what about a move and redirect to there? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:42, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Keep. I understand why this term causes such controversy due to the political connotations of the word "British", but unfortunately there is no other geographical term that I am aware of for the island group in question. Sermann's suggestion of British-Irish Isles unfortunately has no precedent that I am aware of, and, to me at least, would imply that it was a guide to all the little islands that lie off the coasts of the bigger islands we call "Great Britain" and "Ireland". I have to agree with Nrms that perhaps locking the page and letting the debate rage on the Talk Page may be the best solution. Ultimately this is supposed to be a Travel Guide, which people turn to for help with travelling. The page needs to stand for that reason, but I see no reason for it to be any more detailed than it is already. Certainly the text about the Irish objections to the term should stay. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:08, 23 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep, but as a disambig listing the bits and pieces under it, not a full-blown article, and call the region in Europe with the name "United Kingdom and Ireland" (two links to two countries). (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:32, 23 December 2008 (EST)

 * Please contribute this point of view to Talk:Europe/Hierarchy as the arguments there run against this change, and preserving the article as a region. --(WT-en) Inas 19:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

 * Speedy Delete. This term is archaic, hegemonic and widely resisted in Ireland. It is an assertion of a particularly resented British claim to Ireland and over the Irish people. Nothing more, and nothing less. Anybody with a scintilla of honesty should have no problem understanding the politics of this term. If in doubt, go to Wikipedia's "British Isles" page and its 24 archives of Irish resistance to this blast from the days of Britannia ruling the waves. 'Atlantic Archipelago' and 'Britain and Ireland' are two of many alternative names which do not cause offense. 86.42.71.111 22:09, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 * Speedy Delete.Britian isn't comprised of two islands. Ireland is seperate and non related. IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) is more approriate

 * Keep, as an article! This is a commonly known geographic term or region that travellers would refer to. It doesn't necessarily need to be part of any hierarchy and could be mentioned as part of the Islands of the North Atlantic Remember the traveller comes first. - (WT-en) Huttite 01:19, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Result: I'm cutting the Gordian knot. The article has been moved to British and Irish Isles (after deleting the copy+paste that was already there). I'm leaving the redirect as an extremely likely search term. This should be a reasonable compromise. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:51, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Airport Madrid

 * Delete. We only allow airport articles for the largest ones in the world—city-sized airports. I'm pretty sure right now that's Kansai, Heathrow, and O'Hare. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. Merge any useful content into Madrid that isn't already there, but it doesn't look like there would be much. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:31, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete - This article was created by the same user who created Alicante Airport above. The same user created these two articles on es: this week as well, and all the text was copyrighted by http://www.victoriacars.com, which is the company this user is trying to promote. At a glance, these two articles here on en: appear to be translations of that copyrighted material. This in addition to Peter's reason, which in itself was already enough for deletion. (WT-en) Texugo 23:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. I refrained from listing this when I added Airport Alicante above as I wasn't sure of Madrid airport's size. Given Peter's comments, I assume it isn't big enough to warrant its own article, so support the deletion. Plus there is the possible copyvio issue, although if the user is connected to the site, would it be copyvio? (WT-en) Nrms 06:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete. But... Oh the wonders of a slippery slope :) what is a city sized airport? Changi, Atlanta, Frankfurt...? Is it the sleep issue that's important? something as minuscule as Copenhagen Airport has a Hilton hotel on it's grounds. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

 * Delete We recently turned JFK into a redirect. This does not need a redirect because it does not have a well-known name independent of the city. (WT-en) Pashley 08:28, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete. Contact an admin if you want the information for merging purposes. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:30, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Image:ALDEIA SURF ESCOLA - azulzinho.jpg

 * Delete Preeeety sure that's copyrighted, and we don't really need logo's do we. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 08:04, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * same image in small Image:ALDEIA SURF ESCOLA - azulzinho pequeno.jpg

 * Delete (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 21:45, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Delete. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:32, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Katni diesel loco shed

 * Speedied - Diesel locomotive engine storage sheds do not get their own articles, that I know of. (WT-en) Texugo 10:15, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Ogawa

 * Merge and redirect to Uki - Uki city is not close to being big enough to districtify, though the station name is taken from this neighborhood, so we should leave a redirect at least. (WT-en) Texugo 01:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Merge. Note that you don't have to start a VFD to propose a merge. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:39, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Velankanni
It us a stub about a church. (WT-en) AHeneen 12:30, 25 December 2008 (EST)

 * Keep. Appears to be a sizable town (~10,000) and a pilgrimage destination: . (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:17, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Result: Keep. Valid stub for a village in India. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Www.caperace.com

 * Speedied - Obviously not an article. (WT-en) Texugo 00:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Wholesale

 * Speedied - Advertisement. (WT-en) Texugo 01:19, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Image:Cambridge Narrows Google Map.gif

 * Copyrighted and no evidence of being available under a free content license. (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:33, 18 January 2009 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 09:17, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * Speedied - Google maps are definitely not free content. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Image:800px-Martinique - Anse Diamant.jpg
Copied from. The page says "all rights reserved" in French, so it seems unlikely that this image is licensed under CC-BY-SA 1.0 as the uploader claims. (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:45, 18 January 2009 (EST)
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 09:17, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * Speedied - we don't need copyvios here, especially not ones with watermarked URLs! (WT-en) LtPowers 09:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Transylvania history
Vfd'd by User:(WT-en) Chinzh but not added here. Content is copyvio from www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dfacts/dfacts04.htm.
 * Delete (WT-en) Texugo 09:14, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted -- copyvios must go. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:37, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * Redirect - The title, even if its been deleted. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:33, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Image talk:Map of Oceania.png
content does not make sense. --(WT-en) Rein N. 14:06, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * It's just a talk page; no harm in just blanking it, is there? (WT-en) LtPowers 18:25, 20 January 2009 (EST)

 * Speedy delete. Content-less talk pages are candidates for speedy deletion. They're not a priority by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think it's worthwhile that we speedy them as we see them—if an article has a talk page, I tend to check it before making any possibly contentious edits. Speaking for myself, I'd rather save my time if it's empty. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:41, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Prague/www.cpihotels.cz

 * Delete - Not a valid article - we don't do articles on websites. The content should be moved to the relevant district page. I suspect most of it is double listed too, but the listings do not have any contact information. Posted by an anonymous user, that I welcomed! But I cannot guarantee that they will realize that they are wasting their time and ours. Same user created several new Prague district pages that I think can be salvaged. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:44, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * Speedied on sight, didn't even realize there was possible content in there... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:27, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Voyages-inde.fr

 * Speedied - Clearly not an article. (WT-en) Texugo 01:54, 30 January 2009 (EST)