text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2008

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

Sea World California

 * Merge to San Diego/Mission Beach & Delete. In general we do not permit articles for specific attractions, and I don't think this would be an exception. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Merge and Delete. Agreed. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 19:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Wait and See. While I do agree that this page is not an article yet, I am curious as to why the Disneyland page is an article and the Sea World page is not. I can see how merging the page could be a benefit also, but please help me to understand as I am still a new user. (WT-en) Biggie54 08:28, 18 June 2008 (MST)

 * I think it's because Disneyland is a massive theme park which is practically an attraction unto itself. Sea World is more like one of the attractions in a much larger city. Also, just to piggyback on the idea of "can you sleep there?", you can sleep at Disneyland, whereas the sleep listings for this Sea World article aren't actually in Sea World, but near Sea World. You can't sleep at Sea World California. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 13:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Merge and Delete. Ah, ok. That completely makes sense now. I appreciate the heads up and the fact that you can't actually "sleep there" clears up a lot. Thanks everyone. (WT-en) Biggie54 14:21, 18 June 2008 (MST)

 * On an extra note, when I looked up the locations of the Sleep listings, I noticed that none of them even fell under the geographical area of San Diego/Mission Beach. So if whoever's deleting this article is doing a merge, be sure to double check whether it actually belongs in the guide you're thinking of. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 19:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:48, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Władysławowo

 * Delete. Double, since there is Wladyslawowo (without the polish-'l's) that contains info and is linked to. (WT-en) Peymora 07:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Redirect No need to delete.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Redirect. This seems clear. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 15:02, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stanwell Tops
The article is currently a redirect but the last version that I redirected is a completely made up and looks like it was written as an April Fools' Day joke. It isn't valid as an article, and the town is so small it's not worthy of having an article - anything worthy of inclusion can go under the general Illawarra article. Please Delete Historical version. (WT-en) JRG 01:33, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Redirect for now. It is a tourist destination, and may qualify for its own article one day. --(WT-en) Inas 18:15, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
 * A Redirect should be fine, since it's a real place and is redirectable (per Project:Deletion_policy). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:26, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Already redirected --(WT-en) Nick 15:04, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

The North Fork
I don't actually mean to delete this (I presume a redirect would be more appropriate), but it seems to contradict/overlap the region structure for Long Island (which goes by county), and I don't know where to redirect it to at the moment. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:21, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

 * I don't hate this as a sub-region of Suffolk County (New York) or could be redirected there. It is mentioned in that article. -(WT-en) OldPine 12:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Ah, I didn't realize it works as a sub-county region—since Long Island is such a big tourist destination, it's probably fine to have sub-county-level regions. So Keep. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep, although the regional breakout for Long island probably doesn't have to be this granular. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 15:08, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Elbsandstone Mountains (Saxon Switzerland)
My bias: I know we have some, but I'm not a fan of articles about mountain ranges. This could be a redirect I suppose, given a title change, but I don't know that it serves us as a stand alone article. It seems to have been written (or copied) just to support an external link (which I removed). I would have speedy deleted if I weren't such a team player ;) --(WT-en) OldPine 12:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete. IMO there are times when it makes sense to treat a mountain range as a "region," but this is not among them. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:00, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Image:Charon.jpg
Tagged with since February, but nothing seems to have happened since. Anyway, this image appears to be a copyvio. It's from Steamboat Willie, which is still copyrighted in the U.S. Only used in an April Fool's article. (WT-en) JYolkowski 22:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

 * I'll stay neutral since I'm the uploader, but as far as I'm concerned is the crown jewel in our Hell article and I'd be sad to see it go... ho hum – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete. Can't say I get the joke, but it's an obvious copyright violation and must go.  Sorry.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

 * You don't find it funny that Mickey Mouse is the gatekeeper to Hell? Suppose you had to be there. Sapphire will kill you. But, delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Do we have a "fair-use" policy paralleling Wikipedia's? This has passed muster there.  I believe our policy is more restrictive, however. Scratch that.  The colorized version is probably not "fair-use," alas. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:07, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Phaistos

 * Delete. Looks like a non-article to me. I presume that you can't sleep there. It probably should get a mention, though, at either the nearest town or its parent region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete Agree. (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Given the vast number of hits that a Google search on this name reveals, I'd prefer a redirect -- but to where? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Unless someone who knows the area has a better suggestion, just redirect to Crete. The current article has only one line of text, no indication of region or nearest town. (WT-en) Pashley 07:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Crete

Disabled travel in Egypt

 * Delete. While this could conceivably be a valid travel topic, it's currently just a random small city template + an advert for a travel agency. I doubt we'll see any volunteers to write this properly. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:43, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete per Peter -- (WT-en) Colin 19:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep Although it looks like an advert for a tour operator right now but if volunteers could help to edit it then the information would be very useful for disabled travelers. (WT-en) Barracuda 12:46, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete. Having created a similar article myself (Disabled travel in South Africa) I obviously don't see the topic itself as a problem, but I also don't see any reason to keep almost empty travel topics around. If it does not at least contains some useful information it should be deleted. --(WT-en) Nick 14:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:13, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Image:BannerMM copy.jpg

 * Logo, not useful to the traveler --(WT-en) Nick 02:23, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:15, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Image:2117637786 773865b4c8 b.jpg

 * People in photo --(WT-en) Nick 02:23, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The people in the photo aren't recognizable, so this isn't deletable on privacy violation grounds... however I don't see the usefulness of it, and nothing links to it... so I still say delete for those reasons – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Template:Delete

 * Delete. hehe. If an admin sees something that is speedy-deletable then they'll do it, if a user sees something, then they should list it here on the VFD page to draw attention to it... admins do speedy deletes from this page as necessary – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 11:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete, concurring with the above. (WT-en) OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:19, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Titilaka
Seems to be a resort rather than a town, but I may be wrong --(WT-en) Nick 13:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete. Clearly a hotel/resort rather than a destination, but let's follow the process.  It needs to be de-linked from several pages before it's deleted, btw. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:31, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:56, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Viñales
Viñales is a small town next to a national park, which has the same name. I moved this page to Parque_Nacional_de_Viñales. Maybe I should have moved the page rather than created a new page and deleted the old page? Sorry, I wasn't sure at first if there should be separate pages for the town and the national park. I can see an argument for the latter (e.g., most national park pages don't have nightlife sections!) but most tourists go there to hike in the day and salsa dance at night, so I put the town and national park on one page.--(WT-en) Chapayev 16:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Viñales should definitely be about the town.. you can sleep there, and it's a popular destination. Whether or not we need an additional article for the National Park depends on how much there is to see, etc... if there's not a ton of stuff to write an article about the park and just a handful of sites, then the ones nearby the town can go in the "Get out" section of Viñales (city) and the others can go on the Pinar del Rio (province) page. But we should definitely move the city page back to Viñales :) – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 18:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

 * If you look at the map you'll see that the town of Viñales is inside the national park. You can sleep in every national park in the United States, as far as I know, and all are popular destinations. There's "a ton of stuff" about the park waiting for someone to type it, on the photos I uploaded from the exhibits in the national park headquarters.--(WT-en) Chapayev 23:13, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Then we should have articles on both. Viñales should be the article for the town... as for the park, what's the most common name (not necessarily the official name)? Wikipedia calls it Viñales Valley – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 12:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Speedy keep... but Chapayev, let's continue discussing at Talk:Viñales – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:18, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 03:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Sun Peaks

 * Merge-Redirect Keep I'm thinking this doesn't qualify under guidelines on what is an article and I feel it could be covered under the nearest town (to which it previously was redirected). However, my aging memory seems to recall other ski resort articles and I would like to get a consensus so that persistent restarting can be judged concretely. --(WT-en) OldPine 11:39, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep. Sun peaks seems to pass the "can you sleep there?" test, and there are also many other articles that are devoted to ski resorts. I did a search for 'ski resort' before I decided to go ahead with Sun Peaks, just to be sure that it was something fairly common. Large ski resorts are also tend to be the size of a small town. Sun Peaks also does not fit under: "What does not get its own article?" (WT-en) Occasional Traveller 07:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

 * I agree with cacahuate that you can sleep at a hotel, but that shouldn't be the only requirement for an article. Sun Peaks (and many other Ski Resorts are much more than a hotel. They are little towns in their own rights, with homes owned by private citizens, as well as shops and cafes within the "town". ... just another 2 cents on this one.. (WT-en) Occasional Traveller 09:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. At 45 minutes from the nearest city, it seems like it's a valid destination in its own right.  Agree that it passes the "Can you sleep there" test.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:50, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Undecided. We need to clearly define what our criteria are for acceptable ski resort articles. "Can you sleep there" is just a guideline; IMO it's more like "if you can't sleep there, then no article", but not "if you can, then definitely article". You can also sleep at a hotel, but we don't allow articles on hotels. BUT, let's discuss this in an appropriate place, not on VFD: Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article%3F – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep. The basic criterion that has worked in places like Colorado and New Mexico is that a ski resort that is part of a town (e.g. Taos Ski Valley, which is part of the community of Taos that has a lot of destination-ish features beyond the ski area) doesn't get its own article, but is subordinated to the town's article.  If the ski resort is the town (e.g. Red River, one that I happen to be familiar with and know is not "part of" any town but itself) and provides the services that a destination provides, then it is as valid a destination as anywhere else.  This one definitely seems to fall in the latter class, and strikes me as a clear keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 04:01, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Image:Gawai.JPG and Image:Gawai dayak.JPG
People in photo --(WT-en) Nick 03:45, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. (WT-en) OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Image:Marinafish.jpg
People in photo --(WT-en) Nick 03:48, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. (WT-en) OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:06, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Image:SS_Train.jpg and Image:SS_Train_Resized.jpg
Image policy. --(WT-en) Jonboy 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. (WT-en) OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Checked-in Luggage Charges
Fairly blatant plug for Luggage delivery service (which is a valid article). (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge to Tips for flying. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 15:54, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:12, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

What things cost
Evaluating every country on the local cost of two American products converted to the American dollar seems to me to be not only outside of our scope but also a rather myopic, biased and under-informative perspective. Plus, who is going to keep this thing up to date? BusinessWeek? Pricing information already given in the country articles and in the individual listings should already give the traveler a more reasonable idea of what to expect. Except, of course, for those thousands of people who travel the world smoking Marlboro Reds and eating nothing but Big Macs.
 * Delete. (WT-en) Texugo 21:00, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Wait and see. As it stands, this article is not a keeper.  However, with a more thoughtfully chosen set of comparison items (if one is possible), I can imagine it as a valid travel topic under the "Buy" heading that actually assists the traveler -- which, after all, is what travel-topic articles are supposed to do.  Let's give this one a little while to either take root or wither before deciding whether to delete it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:12, 17 February 2008 (EST)
 * Delete. Unmaintainable list. Article is less than a month old and already more than 3 years outdated. Pack of Marlboro Reds will cost you around R20, not R14.70, Coke around R5.50, not R4.50 and a Big Mac I have no idea as I totally avoid the place. The buy section in every county is a far better place to explain local currency purchasing power. --(WT-en) Nick 14:42, 2 March 2008 (EST)
 * I agree with Nick here. This article is a nice idea, but totally unmaintainable. Delete. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:00, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

 * As it stands, delete, but the topic is valid. Rewrite? with some general summary info -- don't pay European or American prices in third world countries, eat local food to save money, cameras and electronics are cheaper in Singapore, etc. -- and have links to things like per capita GDP as an indicator of living costs and to the Business Week article. (WT-en) Pashley 20:49, 2 March 2008 (EST)
 * A friend of a friend, an economist at that, wrote a hilarious book called "Ten Times the Price of a Haircut". Great read on life as a UN/World Bank itinerant consultant, mostly about mismanagement and ill-conceived projects. Title is from a rule he suggests for the cost of girls anywhere. Should we include that? :-) (WT-en) Pashley 20:57, 2 March 2008 (EST)

 * Split into articles of destination countries quoted. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

 * I've done the rewrite, so keep. (WT-en) Pashley 01:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I still don't see the point. When is someone going to need this article? What are they supposed to learn? It looks like common sense reiterated to me, and it's organized like a 9th grade essay. (WT-en) Texugo 01:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

 * Inclined to delete. Nice idea... but... either way, let's figure it out soon, this has been here a few months now – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:06, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete Non-maintainable. -(WT-en) OldPine 12:35, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Discuss. I frequently see a need for 'price comparison across countries': how prices for electronics compare in US or Japan to Moscow; how prices for fashionwear compares in Milano to Moscow; how prices for jewelry or watches compare in Dubai to Moscow etc etc. How can we cater the needs like mine with Wikivoyage? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:24, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

 * We've been discussing for 4 months now... there seems to be a consensus to delete as far as I can tell; I think that's what we should do in the next couple days unless you've got a really convincing argument for keeping it... so far there's been none. If electronics are notably cheap in Moscow, enough so that it makes it relevant to a traveler, then we should note it on the Moscow page... we don't need a separate article to do that – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

 * My first point is to have a global article where I can find that for electronics I should consider Japan, not Singapore or even Moscow; for fur coats, I should go to Greece, and for quality leatherwear--to Vienna or whatever.
 * My second point is that facts like "X is x2 cheaper in Moscow than in New York" are irrelevant in Moscow article (as such facts don't make Moscow an attractive destination), nor they are relevant in New York (as it's a wrong place for facts on Moscow).
 * I've made a stub with both examples of price comparison facts I find useful, and with a short outline of where to go for specific shopping: User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/Shopping around the world. Facts I already listed are mostly trivial, but I'm sure the community can contribute with much more useful. Not sure my examples will help What things cost to survive, but we still need a place for a facts like I listed. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Right, except that we're Wikivoyage not Wikishopping. Nobody is reading our website to figure out where to go based on shopping, but they may consider picking up some electronics in Taiwan if they already happen to be going there and find out that they're cheaper than at home, which is why it makes sense to then mention that under "Buy" in Taiwan article. I understand where you're trying to go with your example there, in theory, but I really just don't see how it will be useful, in reality. I really can't see anyone looking at that and making travel decisions based on it – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

 * I think something along these lines is worth having. Consider the traveller going from Australia to Southeast Asia who wants a camera for the trip. Should he buy in Oz or Bangkok? How much would he save by starting his trip in Singapore and buying there? What about stereo equipment? Is that worth buying in Singapore or Hong Kong to bring home? (WT-en) Pashley 22:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

 * How about setting up an Incubator: namespace where we can place and discuss pages like the above--travel topics that are slippery slopes, but a clearly useful and maintainable form is still to be found--instead of just removing them? From previous history, Ferries in the Mediterranean and User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/List of Ferries (and even maybe User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/Paper travel guides?) might wait there for new ideas on how to make them up and running. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

 * It's not really about which namespace they're in, if we allow them we allow them. I think you should do what you're already doing... try to develop it in your user page sandbox, which others can add to as well if you let them know it's ok. Hopefully then once you start actually thinking them through you'll start to see which of the ideas actually have potential and which of them will just sit around as unrealized stubs for 10 years. Ferries in the Mediterranean is another good example... you argued it out of a successful deletion nearly 6 months ago but haven't touched it since... and it still contains absolutely no info that couldn't and shouldn't already be on the individual countries' get in/out sections. Like an itinerary, those kind of articles need someone with the desire and vision to write them, or at least give a solid base to build on, otherwise they won't really get touched and become useful.

 * Anyhow, we're off track now... we should be discussing the article up for VFD... Pashley has a point about buying a camera, but I think pieces of advice like that are better suited to a section on Urban backpacking, or under "prepare" in a RTW itinerary, etc. Trying to have one article that points to the best place to buy hundreds of different things or that tries to be a price comparison between countries is way out of scope IMO, and leads us to another one of those lovely unmaintainable lists. I don't think it's within our scope to advise people in general about where to buy a cheap business suit or a dvd player – unless it's something very particular about that destination, in which case it's better mentioned in that country's "buy" section, where people would expect to find it... nobody is looking for an article on WT that does price comparisons on dvd players to decide where to go; but if they're already headed to Singapore, let 'em know about it in "Buy" – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

 * 1. Article on shopping and price comparison: I can't say for US, of course. For Russian travellers, shopping is an essential part of travel (especially when they travel to Europe and US)--and I think isn't also quite a case for some Europeans. As for Russia, many-many things are x2-x3 overpriced here, but not all of them--and it's not clear before you get to the brand's original country whether it'll be a huge saver to shop overseas or not. Things get worse when you don't look for specific brand, but for generic good-quality products like fashion footwear or formal suits--you can't easily go to online shops and find out that good-quality stuff can be bought times cheaper even if you don't know a single local brand in this country.
 * And yes, several popular travel guides published in Russia have a heavy section of shops worth visiting for a great value for money--for general-use products, not local souvenirs or regional gourmet specialties.
 * 2. Incubator namespace: I believe that our mission (as editors at Wikivoyage) is to help anyone sharing useful info to find a maintainable and long-living place and form for every piece of content we receive and find useful. Nowadays we expect visionaries to come and share--but revert any info that don't fit well into article format (like totally removing personal or single-occurrence experiences), and we VFD pages that an original author couldn't find a right form for from the first attempt.
 * The idea of separate namespace is to allow "wait-and see", "decide-later" scenario--not immediately considering it as "officially allowed" in here.
 * --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Re: 1... still think it's out of our scope, you could build a whole wiki around world shopping; but we're only debating the :en WT right now, ru may well have more of an audience for shopping articles

 * Re: 2... our mission is... actually, I think that's just about the opposite of the spirit of non-goal #7; a travel guide without a discerning eye isn't a travel guide at all, it's a yellow pages.

 * My main point is that there's not much that I come across that is appropriate to WT and can't fit into our already existing guide structure. My goal is to try and avoid duplicating info across our site, unless absolutely necessary, which it almost never is IMO. The primary place for any info should always be the destination guides themselves. "Lists of..." types of articles IMO only start to suck info towards them that should be aimed at the guides; or worse, put in both, duplicating info that then needs to be kept in sync.

 * I actually like the original idea for this article, when the info is in the articles themselves, the way I did in Bangladesh... I think that's a great use of an infobox. LP also does this, and I think it's useful... not just in gauging how much you'll be spending in a country, but also for knowing that a bottle of water should cost Rs 10, and to punch anyone who asks for Rs 100.

 * So.... then the article was re-written into its current format, and as it stands now, I still think that everything in it (and that will likely be added to it in the future) has a place elsewhere... breaking it down: any relevant info in the opening section and "Cheaper countries" should be (and some already is) in Money. Info in the "Electronics" section should be primarily in the individual country articles, and then perhaps touched on in any appropriate itineraries, as I said above about Pashley's point on cameras.

 * I agree that vfd'ing this the day it was created was maybe a bit rash... it could have been discussed and guided on the talk page first into an appropriate focus or to a different place on the site. I have no problem letting some things sit around and see how they develop, much like Bill says above, but I'd just like to move this one along because a) it seems clear to me that there's better places for the info, and b) I know that you're allergic to conclusions :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

 * I agree that this specific article in its current form is not maintainable or practical enough.
 * What is the best place and way to continue this discussion on other forms of shopping/pricing-centric articles? (clearly a vfd discussion page is not a best place for that)
 * At this point it looks logical to consider: (a) Shopping Destinations article -- places where people head primarily for shopping (I can name only a few destinations, but they do exist), (b) price comparison "Moscow vs rest of world" looks for me like the easiest way to plunge forward; pitifully such info will be available only on :ru (until we find a way to incorporate it to :en); (c) probably, Tips on Shopping article.
 * Generally, between-the-lines thesis "this is non-goal at :en, try at :ru" alarms me--looks like Wikivoyage is still very westerner-centric.
 * --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:39, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Not Western-centric, traveler-centric, which was the conclusion of the conversation you just linked to as well. I'm not advocating that you create those on Russian WT, I personally would like to see them nowhere... but, I said that in response to you saying that it's something Russian's are very likely to find useful... so perhaps that will be one of the various differences between ru and en.

The best place to discuss further (and where this convo should be copied) is Talk:Travel topics. I'd also argue against a "Moscow against the rest of the world", since that would very logically just be placed at Moscow.

RE: "tips on shopping", we already have haggling... I'm struggling to think of more angles that can't be covered there that don't segue back into prices comparing. But for sure if you think of some bring it up at Talk:Travel topics.

So I'm thinking we delete, any other arguments for keeping? Last call... I think I may copy to Pashley's userspace in case she wishes to keep it for future thought? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:58, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

 * "Moscow against rest of the world": when you visit the rest of the world with Moscow as home region / Moscow prices as reference for comparison, it's more logical to seek info on prices and good deals in a specific region, not a one-article-cover-all "what things cost in Moscow" which give no idea on which products can be found in a specific country/city--whether overpriced in Russia or entirely not available. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:20, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "Tips on shopping": travel destinations; duty-free air/port shops; tax-free shopping; "If you buy with a Singapore-only warranty, what can you do with this electronics at home?" to name a few. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:20, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

 * → Talk:Travel_topics – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 12:58, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. Nice effort, but it just doesn't work for me. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. I've been leaning delete for a long time on this, but kept quiet since Sandy did a nice reworking of the article. But ultimately, I see any serious effort to analyze differences in the real costs of goods across countries to be beyond the scope of Wikivoyage. For more casual analysis, along the lines of "digital cameras are both more advanced and cheaper in Japan than elsewhere, so if you don't mind the Japanese interface, buy your cameras here," can just go in the country buy sections—I tend to think its best not to duplicate that info in a travel topic.

 * I could perhaps envision an article that broke down into sections by type of goods (i.e., clothes, high-tech goods, fine dining, accommodations, etc.) and listed some of the best (cheapest) places in the world to get them. Off the top of my head, I certainly couldn't write that, but I could suggest Hong Kong for clothes, Japan for high-tech, fine dining might actually be at best values in North America, and that's all I've got. Such an article would be much more specific, and more resembling a list of pointers. But as is, I'm coming down on delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:15, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Trollstigen

 * Merge to somewhere? I don't want to see this good content deleted, but it's currently not formatted in a way that fits into our website, really. Could we merge this to the "do" section of a region article? Or the "get out" section of Valldal? Or would it warrant a full itinerary? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep, but with changes. Is it just a day trip? If so, merging to the "get out" section of Valldal is probably better. If you can sleep there, or if it is a route into hiking and camping territory, then it should probably become an itinerary. Either way, it should lose the "ëxternal links" section which violates policy and, this being a mountain road in Norway, I suspect it needs warnings about being closed or dangerous in winter. (WT-en) Pashley 09:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: 'Mered and Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2008


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2009

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

Discovery Bay
Vfd tag added in January, but not nominated here. I lean 'redirect to Lantau, but I am unfamiliar with this area. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * It's been ages since I was in HK last, but if it's anything like 2003 - merging with Lantau is probably in order. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep. Definately no justification for deletion, it doesn't even come close to being against any policies.  Whether it should be merged with Lantau as part of an overall region division for Hong Kong isn't really a discussion for here, but for Talk:Hong Kong and Talk:Lantau.  Personally, I think it merits its own article, as it is a distinct destination, with its own methods of getting in, and you can certainly sleep there.  You could certainly go there, and nowhere else on Lantau, but as I say, that isn't a discussion for here. --(WT-en) Inas 04:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep. WikiPedia:Discovery Bay, California is where my oldest brother lives.  Maybe a disamig? -- (WT-en) Colin 23:59, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Disambiguation page created. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:24, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Atlanta/Old Fourth Ward

 * Delete? Not sure about this one. Orphaned page. Seems like this area is covered in other articles. Someone with knowledge of Atlanta? (WT-en) ViMy 16:53, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:04, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:NAdiningoverall.jpg
This is a pretty high-quality image, much better than the normal fare. Too bad the inside of a generic restaurant isn't really worth the quality. Listing was deleted from North Andover article for touting. No license information given, either, but if it wasn't for the uselessness of the image, I'd have at least made an attempt to ask the uploader for a license (since it appears to be self-taken). (WT-en) LtPowers 13:16, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Image:Holiday-inn-sofia-hotel.jpg
This one really looks like it was taken from a web site, but I can't find it on the web. Regardless, it's not used (removed in this edit), primarily because pictures of hotels just aren't that interesting, even one that has some unique architectural elements. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:16, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete. We don't keep images of hotels where their images aren't particularly notable in their destination.  --(WT-en) inas 00:28, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Project:Short articles

 * Delete. Useless, and Special:Shortpages makes it irrelevant – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 02:59, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:04, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Project:Long articles

 * Delete. Useless, and Special:Longpages makes it irrelevant – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 02:59, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:04, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Abu Dhabi (emirate)
I am not requesting a delete, and feel free to say that I'm being petty, but shouldn't "emirate" be capitalized as: Abu Dhabi (Emirate) or even written as it is in the name: Abu Dhabi (Emirates). It bugs me to see a location in lower-case. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:51, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
 * rename is what you request, can be asked on its talk page. --(WT-en) Rein N. 01:17, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
 * The word "emirate" is like "state" or "kingdom" and requires no capitalization AFAIK. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:34, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Ah, I thought it was denoting the nation (like there was an "Abu Dhabi" in another country). Sorry about that. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:46, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Nope, the other Abu Dhabi is the capital of the emirate of the same name, as well as the overall capital of the United Arab Emirates. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Sheraton great valley hotel

 * delete A sleep entry at best. --(WT-en) Rein N. 14:47, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Dire-Dawa
Wikivoyage currently has two pages for this city Dire-Dawa and Dire Dawa. The Dire-Dawa page has a lot of pasted text from Wikipedia, but the name is "Dire Dawa" on Wikipedia, so I suggest merging and redirecting Dire-Dawa into Dire Dawa. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:22, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Sounds entirely reasonable to me. --(WT-en) inas 19:46, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Done. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Galvanized wire

 * delete - not a destination-- (WT-en) Rein N. 07:35, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedying this one. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:41, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Montreal/Archives

 * Could one of the honorables please speedy delete this page? Thanks, (WT-en) jan 07:45, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Done. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:19, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Project:Wikivoyage_news

 * Please also speedy delete this page as it has been done several times... Thanks, (WT-en) jan 07:50, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Done. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:19, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

Updated: as a vandalbot magnet, this has been recreated as a permanently protected redirect. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:21, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Cacahuate/2008

 * Please speedy delete because anonymus created this page on the user sub page of cachuate. Thanks (WT-en) jan 04:24, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Project:Wikivoyage logbook

 * Delete - graffiti --(WT-en) Rein N. 08:27, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Project:Anonymous_user_messages

 * Please speedy delete (WT-en) jan 09:43, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Ria_Formosa

 * Please speedy delete (WT-en) jan 09:44, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Travel news/2004

 * delete - graffiti by spambot --(WT-en) Rein N. 05:27, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Travel news/2005

 * delete - graffiti by spambot --(WT-en) Rein N. 06:18, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Travel news/2006

 * Speedy "deletion" please (WT-en) jan 06:48, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:Perrynewoscmp.PNG

 * Speedy "deletion" please (WT-en) jan 07:44, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Wierd, but here it seems is a redeirection in place. When I use the above link i don't came to the spammed page but when i click on it on "RECENT CHANGES" then it does. Admins: What's wrong with it (Image:Perrynewoscmp.PNG on recent changes) (WT-en) jan 07:47, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
 * No idea, but I deleted it. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:51, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
 * It is now a link to a non existing picture, so it redirects to the old upload page from en: wikivoyage, which is no to be used. (WT-en) Rein N. 08:06, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Iwami
I do appologize if this is annoying (since I also nominted Ikeda), but regardless of what is decided with Ikeda, this one seems completely impractical/useless as a name for this city/site. I suggest making this into an Oda page, because the mine areas that you can tour are in Oda city, and it would allow people to add other things to do in the city, if there are any. Otherwise, making it into an attraction page (Iwami Ginzan) would at least make it a real location. My only hesitation with doing that is that if someone created an Oda page, there may not be much else to add other than Iwami Ginzan. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 10:53, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

RESULT: Merged and redirected (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:54, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Merge and redirect as suggested. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:16, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

BDSM travel
Doesn't look like a legitimate travel topic, despite the insightful information currently on the page. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete per Talk:BDSM travel. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:56, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep. Who are these people, the morality police? Look, I like not living in Iran, how about you? America is place of many diverse cultures, it is a place where we embrace and accept that diversity.

 * BDSM is not my favorite thing to do in the world, but as humans we need to respect what others do, even if there is an article about it on this website. If BDSM disturbs you, close your eyes.

 * On a side note, there needs to be a system in place that disallows members from nominating any unpopular article. Mob rule is wrong, that's why we have a supreme court. --(WT-en) GnarlyLikeWhoa 21:27, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Not all contributors are Americans, actually, so some could very well be living in Iran. Anyways, the content on that page was ridiculous and useless. Personally, I think it's very difficult to have pages devoted to sex tourism, because I think they would attract a lot of contributions that recommend how to get involved in ILLEGAL activities, not simply immoral activities.(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:33, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Please make sure you've read Talk:BDSM travel, and also assume good faith. I suggested that BDSM travel could make for a legitimate travel topic (although it would have to toe a fine line to avoid violating the Project:Sex tourism policy). But we as a rule delete stubby travel topics or travel topics that lack useful content—this was both.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:45, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I should have known there was a policy about this. Peter: Since this has come up, I tried to search for "sex tourism" on the side before responding to this (to see if a page existed), so I am wondering if Sex tourism should redirect to the policy? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:53, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Done. I'd recommend google searches restricted by site:wikivoyage.org anyway—I'm not a huge fan of our search engine, although it has improved greatly over the years.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:06, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Chubby, illegal activity may occur at any of the featured spots on this site. This should be the most inclusive site on the internet, one that includes information for all people. By all means, omit all information that can lead to illegal activity.

 * And yes, there is a morality police of religious extremists as members of this website, see LGBT Travel's vote for deletion.

 * If the page lacks completeness, give it a deadline to be complete, don't just outright delete it. Be resourceful. If you already did this, sorry. --(WT-en) GnarlyLikeWhoa 14:10, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I looked over the Gay and lesbian travel page, the talk page, and the votes for deletion of the page, and most of the opposition came from anonymous contributors. It rendered a lot of support for keeping it, and it was kept. With gay travel, there are cruises, pride parades, and many activities that target homosexuals without promoting illegal activities and are also not against the sex tourism policy. Of course, GLBT travel is associated with sex tourism however, there are enough other activities and things to say about the topic that we can support the page without promoting any illegal GLBT travel. The fact that the page still exists proves that there is another set of principles at work that are not run by the "morality police".

 * I think BDSM is so specific to the actual sex act that there would not be much to put on the page aside from places where you can receive this type of sex, which is against that policy.

 * This page was not outright deleted. The "votes for deletion" policy above gives a 14 day period of discussion, and this discussion actually remained here for twice as long as required, and it had no support during that time. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:43, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * This page was not deleted for any reasons of morality. It was simply a stubby travel topic, with no content and little potential or prospect to be developed into an article.  It went through the normal vfd procedure.  Any discussion on if or whether there should be a morality code is probably best undertaken elsewhere.  Discussion on whether the page should be restored, should be undertaken at Project:Votes_for_undeletion  --(WT-en) inas 17:15, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Anyone who actually reads the VFD of Gay and lesbian travel should find it utterly obvious, as it was to all of us at the time, that the same anonymous user was voting 'Delete' over and over again. No members of this site agreed with him. When the page was speedy kept (e.g. exempted from the VFD process), he went on a vandalism tirade. It's all there in the page's history. There's no even remotely responsible reading of that VFD which can suggest a cadre of religious and moral extremists is running this site. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:32, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Look, Gorilla, your last sentence had nothing to do with what I wrote. What I wrote is:

 * And yes, there is a morality police of religious extremists as members of this website, see LGBT Travel's vote for deletion.

 * I'm not stupid, I know morality police are not the operators of this website, what I meant to write was some members may take it upon themselves to patrol what they see as immoral.--(WT-en) GnarlyLikeWhoa 15:44, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 14:17, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * This page has already been deleted in accordance with the current deletion procedures, so this discussion should now be archived. The current discussion needs to either move to Project:Votes for undeletion or Project:Sex tourism policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:08, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Project:1_March_2006

 * Speedy deletion please (WT-en) jan 07:00, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedied. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Orangutan tour
Spam. Title is a possible travel topic but there's no content here for now. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:13, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedied. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Photography Tour in Indonesia
Spam. Title is a possible travel topic but there's no content here for now. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:13, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Speedied. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Godsw AntiSpyware is an essential security you need to safeguard all your data and files.
delete - Off topic -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 05:35, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Share various useful and cool softwares
delete - Off topic, by same user -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 05:40, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Speedied - --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 06:07, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Travel topics/index.php
delete - Not a travel topic, --> spam (WT-en) Rein N. 03:07, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

Lllynxtransport.com

 * Delete it's an ad & spam, so please speedy! Thanks, (WT-en) jan 03:50, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

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

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2009


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2010

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

Cliffe

 *  Redirect Delete. This was tagged VFD in February 2010 but apparently not placed on the nomination page.  I don't know where to redirect to, but from the talk page: "This is best treated under GET OUT in Chatham and/or Rochester pages. It does not seem to have an hotel or much to see." -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm not sure which article to redirect to, so rather than create a dubious redirect I'd rather delete this. If someone can provide a pointer to a good redirect option then a redirect would obviously be preferred. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:02, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect to the next level up if there's doubt. That'd be Kent.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:20, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Kent. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:23, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Kent. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:40, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:15-June-2007 Jalandhar Bus Stand.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image of (I think) a bus depot.  I don't think the quality is high enough to bother trying to incorporate it into an article, but if anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article to put it in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

 * weak keep It's better quality than the bus picture currently in the Jalandhar article. That one should be deleted instead and this put in its place. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:11, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:32, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:2911.04.2008 13-45-38 Pentax11.04.2008 16-21-41C--Documents and Settings-Schuurman-My Documents-My Pictures-2008-04-11JPEG-afbeelding3.406 KB3264x24483264x2448x24bJPEG23.409 KB.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image of a meat locker. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:52, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:1131.03.2008 14-29-43 Pentax11.04.2008 16-21-44C--Documents and Settings-Schuurman-My Documents-My Pictures-2008-04-11JPEG-afbeelding3.576 KB3264x24483264x2448x24bJPEG23.409 KB.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image of a restaurant. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:631.03.2008 14-16-33 Pentax11.04.2008 16-21-41C--Documents and Settings-Schuurman-My Documents-My Pictures-2008-04-11JPEG-afbeelding1.800 KB3264x24483264x2448x24bJPEG23.409 KB.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image that is apparently now hosted on shared: with a much nicer file name. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Cochem marktplatz April,11,2008 007.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image that is apparently now hosted on shared:. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:1110169251 l.jpg

 * Delete. Unused user image, the same image was re-uploaded as Image:Bjackt.jpg and is used on the user's page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:04, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:11.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image of a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:04, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:102 0626.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image of a church.  If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to indicate what article to put it in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:04, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:100 MG 8026-2b.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image of what I assume is a hotel room.  If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to indicate what article to put it in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:04, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Copy (2) of Altered Tom.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image that's not suitable for anything other than (possibly) a user page, and this isn't used on a user page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin from above.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image.  It's a great picture, but the Yellowstone article currently uses Image:Yellowstone Grand Prismatic.jpg which isn't quite so over-saturated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:ATgAAAAqlOvo_Q_xcA-SPWZrC5Z08aoipOHmFrX7FBFeyptMJ9UaNLp2-5PhzZ_OSUbob63Gbhf7CttrqjZN_m0f8LtjAJtU9VAs5g5mH59-qUSRpA0I3w4a_NYB-w.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image, not travel related, recognizable people. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:19, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:July2007 Shimla Himachal Pradesh India --gopal1035-- (389).jpg

 * Delete. Unused image of train tracks.  I don't think the quality is high enough to bother trying to incorporate it into an article, but if anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article to put it in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:31, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:0 Wideshot Village.jpg

 * Delete. Unused promotional collage for a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:0098 Geese.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image of Canadian geese.  If anyone wants to keep it please specify what article to put it in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:010_lrg.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image of people in front of a frozen waterfall.  The image size makes this suspicious as a potential copyvio.  If anyone wants to keep this please specify what article to put it in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:010.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image of a bowl of soup.  If anyone wants to keep this please specify what article to put it in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:01122006916.jpg

 * Delete. Unused, sideways image of someone's television. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:020 20.JPG

 * Delete. Unused promotional image for a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:03052007274.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image with no indication of where it could be used.  If anyone wants to keep this please first add it to an appropriate article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:080601 Moreland Reunion KC Homecoming BnB 171.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image of a mother and daughter at Homecoming. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:10 Xel-Ha All Inclusive1.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image that looks like it is both promotional (based on the file name) and a potential copyvio (based on the file dimensions). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:50---70灯箱 副本.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image advertising a restaurant. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Armenia 04 Where I Take Coffee.jpg

 * Delete. Unused image of what looks like an office building.  If anyone wants to keep this please first add it to an appropriate article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Sonogram.JPG

 * Delete. Unused image of a sonogram.  The image description is clear that the user who uploaded it did so solely to use Wikivoyage as an image upload service, and while given the subject matter some leniency might be appropriate, junior should now be about six so this picture can go away. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:53, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Speedy Delete Even if this were just recently uploaded, I wouldn't see any point in giving the uploader leniency. Clearly Wikivoyage is not the same as Flickr. Of course, we may regret deleting this later on when the child becomes famous... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:06, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

 * In fairness, this image was uploaded in the early days of Wikivoyage when policies weren't as clearly defined, and the uploader was User:(WT-en) Mark, one of our current admins, but at this point it has clearly outlived its purpose and merits deletion in accordance with current site policies. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:49, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Might be a copyvio anyway; I would think the sonographer owns the copyright to the sonograms. =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:12, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Idre Fjäll

 * Delete. Semi-orphaned and non-useful stub about what seems like a large hotel—not even a collection of resorts side by side. Should be covered in Idre article, which is yet to be created. – (WT-en) Vidimian 15:26, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Delete. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:28, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:42, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Rai nivas
I couldn't quite figure out what this is—it seems to either be an establishment or attraction or neighborhood or something in Pondicherry? Or perhaps it's just a Tamil word. No clue, so I'll lean delete rather than merge. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:10, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:42, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Walking around the Contemporary Center of Warsaw

 * Delete. This itinerary has nothing in it and it hasn't been edited for years. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:18, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:42, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Neamt-Bacau Monasteries Tour

 * Delete. It can barely be called an article! --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:22, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:42, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Ruta del Modernisme

 * Delete. Someone started this itinerary, but did not add *any* info. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:27, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:42, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

South County Itinerary
This itinerary was started, but no information was added to it. It's such a specific destination, I don't think others will work on it as well.

Delete. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:46, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:42, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2010


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2011

Template:If

 * Delete. This template was recently recreated, but it previously went through the VFD process in July 2007.  The Mediawiki #if parser function does the same thing as what the template is trying to do. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:55, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Image:BuffalogOriginalWings.jpg
Has a copyright notice right there on the description page. While images that are properly licensed can still be copyrighted, the lack of any explicit free license in conjunction with the explicit copyright notice gives me great pause. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:19, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Delete. For reason of the concerns expressed above. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:29, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Image:Nanahotel.jpg

 * Delete. Could be mistaken for promotion. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:30, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. Completely uninteresting photo as well. (WT-en) Pashley 20:53, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Resposa

 * Speedy delete. Random gibberish, and no geographic location by that name as far as I can tell. (WT-en) Eco84 20:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

List of Singles Trips

 * Delete. Exactly what it says on the label. A stated aim at WT is to avoid lists. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:27, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete per Project:Goals and non-goals (Yellow pages). The scope is far too broad. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:34, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 23:50, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

 * What about singles travel, the only other thing this contributor has done? That is obviously a legitimate travel topic, but the current article is nearly worthless. Anyone want to improve it? Or nominate it for deletion as well? (WT-en) Pashley 21:13, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Tanami
A highway, not an article.
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 11:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:30, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Knowledge Corridor
Overlapping interstate region article for the Hartford CT-Springfield, MA urban area, created mostly by copying things from those two articles and slapping them together. I think a redirect to New England along with a short note there would suffice.
 * Redirect - (WT-en) texugo 01:49, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep (for the moment). The anonymous user who created this region did so in good faith, and will (hopefully) either make the case for integrating it into the existing hierarchy or redirecting it.  However, if that clarification isn't forthcoming then I'd be in favor of a redirect to New England since multi-state regions break the geographic hierarchy quite badly without offering much benefit. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:53, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
 * The fact that it crosses state lines rather precludes integration, don't you think? (WT-en) texugo 02:56, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Having let this bake for a while, I think the right solution is to turn the page into a disambiguation-like page that simply points to the citys/towns/regions that this extra-hierarchical region encompasses ("The Knowledge Corridor is a region of New England that includes the following towns and cities"). This would keep the article around to catch anyone searching for "Knowledge Corridor", but then point those users to the proper Wikivoyage articles for information about what is contained in that region without adding confusion to Wikivoyage's regional structure. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:49, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Keep - The Knowledge Corridor is an official designation for the region surrounding the cities of Springfield, Mass, and Hartford, Conn. Just as there's a "Research Triangle" in North Carolina, there's the "Knowledge Corridor" along the Connecticut River Valley. It just so happens to straddle two states. From what I read on the discussion page, the reason why the article (which I worked hard on) would be deleted is because it doesn't jive with wikivoyage's current classification hierarchy. Rather than delete a page dedicated to a whole region, I suggest fixing the unaccomodating hierarchy... Otherwise wikivoyage will keep on deleting legitimate articles for the sake of preserving a hierarchy that might not be worth preserving (from the sounds of it.) Is the problem here that it's an interstate region? I don't get it. What of Kansas City, which straddles state lines? Or St. Louis? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.192.97.169 (talk • contribs)
 * The Research Triangle fits neatly into our hierarchy, Kansas City has two separate articles, and the parts of St. Louis in other states have separate articles as well. (WT-en) texugo 04:30, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
 * If an official regional designation and travel destination isn't fitting neatly in the hierarchies of WikiTravel, then in my opinion, the hierarchy is not working correctly to accomodate material it should be able to accomodate.
 * Here are references for those who do not know about the Knowledge Corridor, from a cursory Google search:
 * http://www.hartfordspringfield.com/
 * http://www.hartfordspringfieldnews.com/
 * http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=9825
 * http://www.westernmassedc.com/Data__Demographics/knowledgecorridor/
 * http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2010/09/hartford-springfield_partnership_celebra.html -- Knowledge Corridor partnership celebrates 10 years.

 * Here's my reasoning to Keep. I wrote this on the Knowledge Corridor's discussion page and I'll reprint it here so that people who don't visit the former can read the rationale.

 * I am new to Wikivoyage, and created this page after I searched for "Knowledge Corridor" (I'm currently staying with family in the region) and was surprised to find that it didn't exist on here. I don't think that a redirect to New England would do, because New England is vast. Perhaps if the Knowledge Corridor was drawn on a map of New England, appropriately described then its attractions fleshed out, it could be redirected. Alternately, perhaps if Knowledge Corridor was redirected to "Connecticut River Valley" (which currently describes only northern and central Connecticut,) that would work; however, that article would have to be expanded to accomodate the entire Connecticut River Valley, which (unfortunately for the classification hierarchies here) stretches from from the Canadian border south to Long Island Sound. Perhaps needless to say, the CT River Valley encompasses several distinct regions in different states. Perhaps that article as currently constituted is incomplete, describing only Connecticut's 'Connecticut River Valley.' I don't know.

 * Regardless, the Knowledge Corridor itself is a distinct region within the Connecticut River Valley. From what I understand, it does not extend past Middletown in the south, nor Northampton-Amherst in the north. It is a region about fifty miles in length and twenty miles wide (at its widest) within the CT River Valley, which includes parts (but not all) of the Pioneer Valley, (which itself includes the Five College Area, from which I'm currently writing to you,) and parts (but not all) of Connecticut's section of the Connecticut River Valley. How to you ferret out all of these overlapping regions?--it's a great question. That said, I don't think that deleting the Knowledge Corridor region-a dynamic, revitalizing region, with many points of interest--or consigning it to an obscure one or two-line reference on the "New England" page is appropriate. That would barely scratch the surface.

 * In my opinion, if you want to redirect "Knowledge Corridor," then at least it ought to be mentioned on the pages of Hartford, Springfield, their respective states, and their respective regions (e.g. New England, CT River Valley, Pioneer Valley, Five College Area, etc.) My ultimate point is that 1.9 million people live in a relatively small geographical swath beside the Connecticut River. If the region views itself as a region, why shouldn't Wikivoyage? Ideally, I'd be able to come here and receive travel tips for the region. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.192.97.169 (talk • contribs)

 * For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article says that the "Knowledge Corridor" is "an economic, civic, and cultural partnership between the Connecticut River cities of Springfield, Massachusetts and Hartford, Connecticut; and the cities' surrounding metropolitan areas" that was created by regional boosters in 2000, a trademarked moniker designed to attract investment in the region. I find it hard to believe that any traveller when asked "What are you doing this weekend" would answer with "I'm going to the Knowledge Corridor". That said, we do of course want this area to be thoroughly covered in our guides but, like Kansas City and other places, I'm not sure it will be possible to group these under a regional article. Keeping in mind that we don't want to duplicate listings or information that is already found in the city guide articles, what information do you hope to put here? (WT-en) texugo 04:14, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Keep as an overview with links to the towns for most of the information.
 * On one hand, we don't recommend Procrustes as an innkeeper, and our region hierarchy should not work that way either. This has come up before, for example Project:Votes_for_deletion/November_2009.
 * On the other hand, we do have a hierarchy so we should use it. Most information should go in the town articles.
 * On the third hand (great for holding the flashlight while you work), this is a new user who is actively writing. Don't discourage him or her. (WT-en) Pashley 07:36, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Keep. When reality does not comply with policy, policy is easier to change. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 07:17, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Wait a minute... are you suggesting that we abandon our Project:Geographical hierarchy policy? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:49, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Not at all. Merely that where it doesn't work properly, it should be adjusted. The Knowledge Corridor seems to be a regional destination by all criteria that I have seen so far except that it crosses a state line, which makes breadcrumb navigation problematic. The hierarchy policy is useful in almost all cases, but there will be a few where it is not ideal. I can't think of concrete examples, but can easily imagine things like national parks and the like crossing state/province boundaries too. How else can they be accommodated? (two articles is a bit over the top). Breadcrumbing does present a slight difficulty. the simplest solution would be to breadcrumb the region to the same level as the regions it is located in, and exclude the conflicting regions from the path. Cities etc. within the region get breadcrumbed by the most useful region they are part of (usually the state or equivalent). Otherwise a new system allowing for parallel breadcrumb paths and branching would be necessary, and I have no idea if that is even possible. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:38, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I am still completely, absolutely 100% unconvinced that this is anything but a recently-created moniker useful only for local municipalities trying to attract investment. (WT-en) texugo 03:09, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I agree; it's primarily an economic designation, not a tourism one. No one says "Oh, I'm vacationing in the Knowledge Corridor this summer!"  They're trying to make it a cultural region, and certainly there are similarities, but I don't think it's strong enough to override the state borders.
 * Peter, we do currently have a number of extra-hierarchical regions, like Navajo Nation, as well as regions that are actually (sort of) in the hierarchy but overlap more than one state, like Metro New York. I think Metro New York is awkward and causes all sorts of navigation problems, but Peter F. was a strong proponent of doing it that way (as was done with Chicagoland.  Anyway, that's just an example of the confusion caused when we try to insert these sorts of regions into our hierarchy.  That's not to say it's never possible, but I think such things work best as a redirect or as a brief stub that just covers the basics.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:40, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
 * There is no prohibition of economic designations for destinations in the listing of non-goals, nor anything else that I know of to specify that articles are aimed exclusively at the non-business traveller. If that is to be the case, it should be spelled out in the policies, preferably somewhere easy to find. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Given that we have to pick one or the other, it makes no sense to favor an invented, purely economic region that crosses state lines over more natural travel regions that have come together more organically. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:02, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
 * If that is the choice, I would agree with you, But is it? • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 13:46, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
 * No, it quite obviously isn't. We do not "have to pick one or the other". This article can act as a supplement to existing articles. It should not grow large; it should be just an overview and most of the information should be in the city articles. However, it does not break the hierarchy, merely adds to it. (WT-en) Pashley 11:55, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
 * This kind of thinking is causing us to slip further and further down the slope away from our directive to resist overlap. We do have to "pick one or the other" as to whether we continue to put stock in our policy of discouraging overlap, or we discard it in favor of letting this kind of thing proliferate. Exceptions made thus far such as Navajo Nation are special cases which were discussed at length before being allowed, but this is no such special case, just a chamber of commerce's recent notion of how best to attract business, and if we allow this, there are all kinds of other extra-hierarchical regions waiting to follow.(WT-en) texugo 12:49, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
 * (WT-en) texugo's argument matches current site policy - except in rare cases the benefits of having a clear regional structure outweigh the benefits of having an article for every named region - see Project:Geographical hierarchy which states "If we have overlapping guides, readers don't know where to go to get travel information, and contributors don't know where to put travel information". That said, I think that the correct solution is to convert this article (and other extra-hierarchical region articles) into a disambiguation-like page containing a list of cities/regions that have related information, which allows us to keep an article for the region in case someone searches for the term in the future. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:05, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I agree, and I've been thinking maybe we need to formalize a policy for pages that are valid tourism destinations (like Navajo Nation, Erie Canal, bodies of water, mountain ranges, and the like) but don't fit into our geographic hierarchy. We could just lump them under travel topics or disambiguation pages, but as evidenced by continuing discussion, that seems inadequate to many of us.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:30, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
 * This is why I proposed standardizing a meta-region template as a sort of "expanded disambiguation" category of articles. Discussion on that kind of fizzled, but I still think it's a good idea, because I really think we need a predictable way to handle these situations. Certainly wouldn't mind opening that discussion back up... (WT-en) texugo 21:42, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I rather liked that proposal, though re-reading the discussion now, I see you never answered the questions I had. =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:02, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
 * OK. I have now answered that here and hope to re-open some discussion there. (WT-en) texugo 11:13, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Knowledge Corridor has now been rewritten per this discussion. I think that means we can close this as keep. Does anyone object? (WT-en) Pashley 00:39, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Honestly, I'm still not convinced it's a useful travel region, but I suppose there's little harm in keeping it. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:49, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Leaning delete. Sorry to hold this up further, but... If it's not a useful travel region, then why keep it? The whole concept has to do with marketing and branding for non-travel related purposes, so to me it doesn't seem a good fit for our website. (Furthermore, it's not the only section of the U.S. to call itself a knowledge corridor either, which raises other problems.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:34, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. This has been open for months, and there is enough sentiment for to "keep" that a deletion does not seem the appropriate resolution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Duchy of Lancaster
Another Lancashire division like the slew of them vfd'd above in June.
 * Delete or Redirect somewhere - Overzealous subdivision. (WT-en) texugo 09:49, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Lancashire, although a delete is very tempting given the amount of messing around there has been with our Lancashire and Greater Manchester articles, and the amount of time wasted clearing those up. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Outcome. Redirected to Lancashire. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2011


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2012

File:Melbourne.jpg

 * Low-res image that's found in higher resolutions all over the web. See TinEye results  -- (WT-en) LtPowers 10:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 10:19, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:Wwoofers.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy. Additionally, with no source or license specified, at only 240x137, and with no real indication of what this is supposed to illustrate, it's not a particularly good travel image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:LaMoulineMainRoom.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy. Additionally, with no source or license specified, at only 240x169, and with no real indication of what this is supposed to illustrate, it's not a particularly good travel image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:LaMoulineMainFireplace.jpg

 * Delete. Image is apparently of a hotel lobby fireplace, so delete per Image policy.  It's only 240x163 and doesn't specify source or author, so would be a questionable addition even if it wasn't of a business. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:LaRoulotte.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy. Additionally, with no source or license specified, at only 240x184, and with no real indication of what this is supposed to illustrate, it's not a particularly good travel image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:Frontoutside2008.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy - orphaned image of a Comfort Inn. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:18, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:Bungalows-homepage small.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy - orphaned image of a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:16, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:133.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a Chinese(?) lion.  No indication of source or of what this is supposed to illustrate, so unless someone wants to de-orphan it delete per Project:Deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:52, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:CornigliaPainting.jpg

 * Delete. This is a now-orphaned image of a painting of a village.  Delete per Image policy ("Wikivoyage does not use montages, or really any type of image other than maps or simple photography."). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:12, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Template:Delete and Category:Speedy deletion candidates

 * Delete. I'd argue these should be deleted for three reasons:
 * As noted in Pub I think that Template:Vfd is sufficient, and the corresponding VFD nomination can then suggest speedy deletion if appropriate. Note that the existing Project:Deletion policy already states that obvious speedy deletion candidates (such as spam) do not require nomination unless they are more than 24 hours old.
 * Per Project:Using Mediawiki templates it is generally best to discuss template creation before creating a new template, and I'm not sure there would have been agreement to create this new template.
 * In the past the consensus has been to try to minimize required maintenance by consolidating deletion requests - see discussions on Project:Votes for deletion, for example - and as someone who handles a significant amount of the deletion requests on this site I'd like to stick with that process.
 * -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:45, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

 * Comment. As the creator, I will not oppose this request as I was unaware of the recommendations at Project:Using Mediawiki templates about MediaWiki template discussion. However, I believe speedy deletion and nominated deletion are 2 completely different things. While nominated deletion requires discussion, as the policy states, obvious speedy deletion candidates should be immediately deleted. I understand administrators will delete them when they see them, but there are some time periods where there are no administrators actively following the recent changes, and many may be missed. If many spam articles are created, it's tedious for normal users to have to keep a list of them and wait 24 hours to check which ones have been dealt with, and which ones should be nominated for a discussion which is fairly unnecessary. (WT-en)  J ames A    >talk 00:27, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Delete. I find this designation useless. It's obvious when a page has spam on it, and when I see that, I delete it right away. When I see your template, I take another step of checking to see what the deleted text was. It's a time-waster, rather than a time-saver. I know you mean to be helpful, so please don't take my remarks the wrong way; I'm just being frank. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:56, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Delete I agree with (WT-en) Ikan Kekek, that while I appreciate the idea, I think it creates more work. I'm not seeing too many spam articles that hang around for 24 hours, so I think the advice is not to keep a personal list, but just ignore them and leave them for someone else.   I also agree with (WT-en) Ryan that the approach is best discussed in the deletion policy.    --(WT-en) Inas 18:38, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

--(WT-en) Inas 18:43, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:05, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Jan Gissberg
Persons, are not a subject on Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Rein N. 09:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
 * (Speedy) Delete! (WT-en) D-270599 (talk to me, please!) 09:27, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. Note that per the deletion policy pages created as vandalism generally don't require a delete nomination ("New pages that are plainly spam and that qualify for speedy deletion will be deleted as soon as they are noticed by an administrator, and therefore do not need to be listed on the votes for deletion page. If such a page remains for more than 24 hours, add it to the nominations page as a way to ensure that it isn't overlooked."). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:49, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Ema Datshi

 * Unsuccessful "speedy delete". Four admins tried but were not able to delete it. (WT-en) Jc8136 03:27, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) 6k7a4q5f9
It gets worse: User was blocked and the site protected but still spambots were able to corrupt the page. I think this turns ugly... (WT-en) Jc8136 07:17, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Ouangjgo8bq
Next not deletable account. Blocked and protected so far. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:26, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Yunsuhytht+ Leal
Can't delete due to bug. (WT-en) Jc8136 08:31, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

title: Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2012