text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2011

Elektrichka
We don't do articles on transportation systems. (WT-en) –sumone10154 21:43, 31 January 2011 (EST)
 * Speedy deleted (WT-en) jan 03:07, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:ISRAEL.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned map of Israel.  Being orphaned is enough to warrant deletion, but the image is also tagged as public domain despite being based on a satellite photo - that photo may be public domain, but without any indication of where the original image is from there is also a potential copyvio issue to consider. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Image003.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Image151.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a hotel pool.  We typically discourage promotional images of hotels, and without even an indication of what hotel this is I fail to see how it could ever be useful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Imagery-our company.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an Australian bus company. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Images-23-.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned thumbnail promoting a B&B.  Even if it wasn't an unused promotional image, at 75x65 it's far too small to ever be of any use. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Images-b1669156S.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of someone's sandwich. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Images from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Shanica Harris

 * Image:Imagesadv.jpg
 * Image:Camden.jpg
 * Image:Campbell.jpg
 * Image:Buscmd.jpg
 * Image:Smallphoto.jpg
 * Image:Imageswater.jpg

 * Delete. All images uploaded by this user are orphaned, all lack license information, and the variety of image quality and size strongly suggests that these were taken from other web sites.  Image:Camden.jpg even has a watermark on it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Img 0117.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Img l 3356883.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an internet cafe with a recognizable person and no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Imran 01.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned thumbnail of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:L 7abe0e6de38197b47fd2794cd33ea159.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Llama final !.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image for a hostel in Lima. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:MASTER BEDROOM 250 X 188 PX.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an apartment rental. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:MASTER BEDROOM.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an apartment rental. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:MCS Committee Interim Nov. 2008.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release provided.  This was apparently uploaded to promote a cooking conference of some sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:MTS.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned logo for an NGO in Malta, something that does not seem particularly relevant to creation of travel guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:MJ 2008 Blog Pic.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Fk-map.png

 * Delete. This map is unused now as it has been made obsolete by Peter's much-superior Image:Falkland Islands regions map.png. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:22, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Zion-area-map.jpg

 * Delete. This map is unused and has been made obsolete by Image:Map-USA-Zion National Park-area01.png. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:26, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:North america.jpg

 * Delete. This map is unused and has been made obsolete by Image:Map of North America.png. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:30, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Physical world map.gif

 * Delete. This image is currently unused and should a world map image be needed then a Wikivoyage-style map would be preferable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:30, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

U.S. Highway 49
This is a stub about an unimportant highway and only has a list of cities. (WT-en) Sumone10154 21:57, 16 January 2011 (EST)

 * Delete This one has had two years to become something, its entire content could be better contained in a routebox.  --(WT-en) inas 22:58, 16 January 2011 (EST)
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:10, 17 January 2011 (EST)
 * 15 days have already passed, can someone delete this now? (WT-en) –sumone10154 21:54, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:24, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Spanish schools argentina

 * Delete. Created by a new contributor who is obviously very passionate about language opportunities in the town of Mendoza, but this does not meet the Project:What is an article criteria and is primarily a promotional article for a specific language school. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 25 January 2011 (EST)
 * Delete. Some de-touted content can stay but its not an article. (WT-en) jan 06:03, 26 January 2011 (EST)
 * Delete - Not an article, and the text has been placed verbatim on a couple of dozen other sites, including forums at Lonely Planet's website. (WT-en) Texugo 07:59, 26 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:24, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Multiple images for deletion-wrong place

 * Felix, these and all your followups are on shared instead. Please use the Shared VFD page for them, and tag them as candidates for deletion there instead of here (creating all those image description pages results in a lot more cleanup work on :en).  -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:22, 4 February 2011 (EST)
 * I was Lost in Space...Thanks (WT-en) D. Guillaime, I have shipped them out to WT shared and deleted from this page to reduce clutter. Sorry for my error and thanks. (WT-en) felix 07:05, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Huckberry
I've looked on wikipedia and google maps and I can't find a place with this name (besides streets). (WT-en) –sumone10154 23:26, 30 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:47, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Image:GNT-1.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image that is a duplicate of Image:Msarovar3.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Galap2.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image that is an advertisement for a tour company, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Garyfacecrop.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Mjavad

 * Image:Elephanta-caves.jpg
 * Image:Caves-elephanta.jpg
 * Image:Gateway-of-india.jpg

 * Delete. These thumbnail images are orphaned and, since the user misunderstood the copyleft license with respect to text contributions, it is probably safer to delete these as potential copyvios as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Georgejor4.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided.  Also, the red-eye is kind of creepy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:GetAttachment-1-.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable people with no model releases provided.  This was apparently uploaded to promote a specific tour company, something that is typically discouraged. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Ggarand.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a bottle of vodka.  This looks like a commercial image to me, and there is no indication of original source or that it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:2881746685 02e26301c1 o.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image that is a duplicate of Image:Jan.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Images from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Sarah Jones

 * Image:ZEH 9705.JPG
 * Image:ZEH 2564.jpg
 * Image:Gghsummer.jpg
 * Image:ZEH 9705.jpg

 * Delete. These images are all orphaned, all appear to be promoting a specific business, and may not be licensed CC-SA - two images state "this image is copyrighted" with no indication that it is being licensed for use under the CC-SA, and one is a watercolor with no indication of source. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Go Aish.jpg & Image:Go aish.jpg

 * Delete. These are the same image.  Both are orphaned, and both appear to have been uploaded to promote a specific business. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Lauramdee

 * Image:Varnum House.jpg
 * Image:Goddard.JPG

 * Delete. These images are orphaned and both were copied from various web sites (see the image description pages) without any indication that they can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Goldengatebridge1.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image.  At only 225x300 this has been replaced by larger, clearer images of the bridge, so there is no reason to keep this image around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Goldengatebridge2.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image.  At only 225x300 this has been replaced by larger, clearer images of the bridge, so there is no reason to keep this image around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

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

 * Image:Goldenhorn006.jpg
 * Image:Goldenhorn004.jpg
 * Image:Goldenhorn021.jpg
 * Image:Goldenhorn034.jpg

 * Delete. These are all orphaned advertisements for a specific hotel in Turkey, something that is typically discouraged. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

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

 * Image:Gregs House of Pimpin.jpg
 * Image:Greg's House of Pimpin'.jpg
 * Image:Doorbell.jpg
 * Image:73872109.jpg
 * Image:Eversmeyer Manor1.jpg

 * Delete. Images are all orphaned, and this user's contributions were all vandalism. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:HES1005 1.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned collage image that appears to be promotional in nature.  There are also recognizable people in some of the photos without any model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:34, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Hinn aruba aerial.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image of a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Holidayinnaruba pool.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image of a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:PICT0012.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Pitmc phototour01.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image for a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Image:Home Shot.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned promotional image for a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

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

 * Image:LogoSWS.jpg
 * Image:Homeen1.jpg
 * Image:Homeen2.jpg

 * Delete. These are all promotional images for a tour company - two are screen captures of a web site and one is a company logo. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Acela Express
This is not an itinerary. More an advert. (WT-en) Shep 13:30, 10 January 2011 (EST)

 * Keep (for now). While the preference is articles on specific subjects like the Acela Express start out as sub-sections of broader articles like Rail travel in the United States, we do allow articles on individual trains such as Palace on Wheels and Trans-Siberian Railway, and the current policy is that there is a one-year incubation period for such articles to develop. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:36, 10 January 2011 (EST)

 * Delete or Merge into Rail travel in the United States. It isn't an itinerary, it is just a train. This is a real slippery slope for articles on transportation. --(WT-en) inas 18:56, 10 January 2011 (EST)

 * Keep (for now). Although it is just a train route is does seem to present scope for further Amtrak system (Itinerary) development. I understand it is the nations second ranked Amtrak journey. Perhaps if the current Acela Express lingers for a while it will afford the opportunity for sister (Itinerary) articles to emerge that may detail some of the other Amtrak routes. I note that one such sister article already exists. Empire Builder (Itinerary) appears to complement this Acela Express article. If the sort of detail currently presented in Acela Express were to be merged into the current travel topic article Rail travel in the United States then it may become a little bloated if subsequently complemented by detail on other significant Amtrak routes. The current bulk of detail on Acela Express could also be somewhat overbearing within the current Amtrak content in the Rail travel in the United States article. I guess the issue is one of considering if the route is significant and the information within is of benefit to the traveller. However (WT-en) inas is quite correct to voice caution, we do not want to see articles emerging on local bus services and commuter trips. Amtrak is a State icon and the nations trunk passenger operator. Hopefully that delineates sufficient icon and significance status. (WT-en) felix 22:30, 10 January 2011 (EST)

 * There is nothing iconic or particularly significant about this trip. It is a standard, albeit popular, train running between major east coast cities.  Its isn't a tourist train.  It isn't one of America's great train journeys. It just a utilitarian form of transport running between East Coast cities..  If we allow a separate article for this train, I can't see any remaining criteria to exclude any inter-city train route. This really is a train that you just turn up at the station and catch to get to where you are going.  It's probably even better just moved to the Get in sections of the relevant destinations.  It is not an itinerary, as you would only take the train if it was where you were going in the first place.  The other examples given above are actually trains that you may go out of your way to catch, because they are journeys in themselves.  This one isn't.  --(WT-en) inas 22:56, 10 January 2011 (EST)

 * While I don't necessarily disagree with you, there doesn't seem to be any clear policy to support a deletion, and since we already have articles about trains there is a precedent set for keeping this article. Similar issues were raised concerning cruise ships and not resolved.  I'd suggest trying to clarify a policy on such articles at Project:Deletion policy, but until then I'm not sure that there is a precedent to delete this particular article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:20, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 * The policy I am relying on, is that that it is too fine grained. We don't create articles for each individual attraction,  each individual bus company, or each individual train that services a destination, we incorporate them into destination guides (or sometimes travel topics/itineraries).  We have some (legitimate) exceptions for some train journeys that constitute destinations in themselves.  However, I don't see those in anyway setting a precedent for an article on what is very nearly a commuter train.  There are several train "brands" that run the route between D.C. and NY.  The information from this article could be contained in 1-2 lines of prose in those articles.  --(WT-en) inas 00:03, 11 January 2011 (EST)
 * I'm going to go with (WT-en) Inas on this one. This is a very short ride used mostly by business travellers, and the article consists of only a list of stops plus information about amenities that is essentially the same for all Amtrak lines, duplicated from the US rail travel article. Even if we give it a year, I cannot imagine what useful stuff could possibly be added. This is not an itinerary-- if someone created a crazy shotgun itinerary like The Eastern Seaboard in a Day that utilized this line, fine, but the line by itself will never be suited to an itinerary and thus shouldn't be an article.
 * The currently unagreed-upon policy indicates that this type of thing should start in the parent topic (Rail travel in the US) and be split out if necessary (which is subjective). The splitting out here hasn't really added any information that couldn't be handled with a routebox, rendering the article redundant. Anyway, even if you say the deletion policy is a bit unclear, I'd say that in spite of that-- or perhaps because of it-- if we can agree here to delete it then we should. Just because there are a very few existing articles for tourist trains, mostly famous ones that take several days to traverse, does not to me imply a precedent that we must keep for a whole year any and every train article that pops up. On the contrary, not even allowing a discussion to delete this kind of stuff sets the opposite precedent in that if this utilitarian 3 1/2 hour train line is given a years' chance to become something besides a glorified list, I could easily create a couple hundred such articles for high speed lines here in Japan and we'd have to sit on those for a year too. Waiting for consensus on the policy is already taking a long time-- postponing all related vfds until such time is unnecessary. Is anybody claiming we should keep this on its own merits rather than just because policy is unclear? Let's just focus on this article-- does it actually seem like it has potential to ever develop into an itinerary on its own? I say absolutely not. (WT-en) Texugo 00:10, 11 January 2011 (EST)
 * In that case, Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service should be deleted as well (both are shorter than Acela Express). (WT-en) Sumone10154 20:41, 12 January 2011 (EST)

 * Keep, for now anyway. I agree with Ryan that there is no clear deletion rationale (especially in light of the existence of several other long-standing articles following the same format), and that we should resolve this question off the vfd page. I suggest we take the discussion to Talk:Rail travel in the United States. --Peter 22:27, 12 January 2011 (EST)
 * I think the rational is perfectly clear...
 * Please see Project:What is an article. We do not create articles about transport systems or stations.  This is clearly an article about a transport system.
 * Although we have a few train articles, this one is such that if we let it pass, we are accepting that Wikivoyage now accepts articles about transport systems without having to pass any threshold or exception criteria. This is a change to WIAA, and that argument should be taken up there.
 * I'm not saying this would necessarily a bad thing, but we should consider it there, rather than creating a new class of articles about transport systems under a pretence they are really itineraries. --(WT-en) inas 22:50, 12 January 2011 (EST)
 * I think I effectively agree with you, except for what process would be ideal to resolve the question. Vfds can be a contentious way of resolving disputes, and especially in the case of deciding what to do with a new page created by an excellent new contributor (and given that it was quite reasonably created in the model of other existing articles), I think it would be wise to discuss how to present this content on a different page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:28, 12 January 2011 (EST)
 * Although in theory that may be the case, policy discussions can bog down, and articles can easily stray when discussion is localised to discussion pages of limited interest. VFD gives an urgency to the discussion, and in the past has done a better job of forcing a community consensus of the interpretation of our current policy in a way than pages like Talk:Rail travel in the United States.
 * This vfd seems to be heading towards an odd conclusion. No one really seems to be in strong support of the article concept, however, we seem unable to delete it because we can't interpret our own policy to do so.  --(WT-en) inas 00:25, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 * Precisely—because we lack a clear deletion rationale. I know you argue that there is one, but the fact that others disagree would imply that it's not terribly clear. In such cases, we should table the vfd and start a discussion. We're all reasonable people here (save the Mandarmani phone number changers), so we should be able to work out how to best present this type of content via the standard practice of discussion and consensus, in the grand wiki tradition. If we can't, then we deserve to get bogged down. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:43, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 * I would, of course, like to see the policy sealed up to avoid this kind of article creation, but I would still contend that a consensus to delete in any individual case should still take precedence over any overarching guidelines we might have, so I don't think it's good to shelve the vfd, because, as with the bodies of water discussion, it may take months or years, and letting this kind of thing pile up in the meantime seems to eventually lend more credence to the case of those who argue to keep them. (WT-en) Texugo 01:29, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 * And, I really would like to understand what is unclear about a rational based on deleting a transport system article, when we have a clear policy that we don't have articles on transport systems. So far the only disagreement I have seen that there is a no clear deletion rational is simply stating that as a fact.  In any event, we shouldn't be afraid to give a meaning to our own policies.  If the meaning we decide is that this kind of article is permitted, then all well and good.  Words will always require interpretation.  We wouldn't need this process at all if the policy was always definitive and clear.  --(WT-en) inas 20:13, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 * Because we do allow itinerary articles for train routes, such as the ones linked above. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:34, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 * But have they been tested against policy in the vfd process? If not, then we have not make a decision to "allow" them.  There are comments on the articles themselves, questioning the need for them.  This one is being tested against policy, and we should interpret the policy, and decide if the article complies.  If other similar articles have been selected for vfd, then similar reasoning may apply here.  But we can't just shelve this vfd because noone has been bothered to nominate other similar articles, and the existence of the other articles doesn't make the policy any less clear.  --(WT-en) inas 23:13, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 * → Talk:Palace on Wheels --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:37, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Yes, I know that one - I put it there the day before yesterday. Back to square one. That article was justified on the basis that it was an itinerary, and therefore in line with our policy. In any event, it is a tourist train. This one is just about the train - the transport system. Are you claiming the same reasoning applies to this article as applied in the vfd for Palace on Wheels. If so, then say so. --(WT-en) inas 22:30, 14 January 2011 (EST)

 * Delete. I am with Inas on this one. This article (Acela Express), Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service are not Itineraries and dont look to me like they ever will be what I would consider an itinerary. Palace on Wheels and Trans Siberian Railway are itineraries in that it is plausible that a traveller will choose to make the trip for its own sake, not just to get from one point on the line to another, Ask yourself if you can imagine a person in his right mind deciding to make a trip on the Acela Express because it looks like an entertaining way of spending some free time. The Trans Siberian and Palace on Wheels pass this test for me. If someone else were to pay I would cheerfully do both trips. The Acela does not. I can not imagine someone saying, "Hey I think I will take the Acela this weekend, it looks a fun ride. I can get to point X in time to catch the return flight/bus trip/whatever. I could imagine this for the Palace on Wheels, anf the Trans-Siberian appears to be an expedition all by itself, and certainly provides a fine way to see large expanses of countryside. Unless the Acela provides extensive exposure to scenic beauty or on board entertainment (and so far there is no evidence of either), I suggest it does not qualify as an Itinerary and therefore qualifies for deletion. Same argument for Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service. Unless they provide some form of entertainment in the form of scenic views, which is sufficient to justify travelling on them for that reason alone, they should go. If there is any information worth keeping, merge it into Rail travel in the United States. Compare the article with Empire Builder which actually describes what you can expect to see during the journey. Empire Builder therfore makes it as an itinerary for me (but only just). I would consider travelling by that train as an alternative way of getting between two points on the route because of what can be seen on the way. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 10:26, 15 January 2011 (EST)

 * Merge and redirect to Rail travel in the United States. I do not think this meets criteria for a standalone article; see policy citations above. On the other hand, we should not just delete it; that would waste the work someone has done and lose the information. Acela Express works fine as a redirect; it is a plausible search term. (WT-en) Pashley 21:00, 15 January 2011 (EST)
 * OK, I will go with a Merge and Redirect to Rail Travel in the United States and recommend the same for Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:50, 16 January 2011 (EST)
 * What about Empire Builder, California Zephyr and Empire Builder. (WT-en) felix 10:08, 16 January 2011 (EST)
 * I think Empire Builder has more going as an itinerary, but possibly not enough. California Zephyr is much the same. Perhaps they should all be merged into Rail travel in the United States. Then if anyone builds them up sufficiently, they could be split off as sub-articles of RT in the US. Frankly, I dont think this is likely, and I think they will all stay in the Routes section of RT in the US more or less as they are, as there probably isnt that much more to say about them. Has anyone asked the people who started the articles what thy had in mind? • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 12:54, 16 January 2011 (EST)
 * Sorry I didn't read through Project:What is an article? carefully; since there was already Blue Water Service, I assumed it would be ok to create Acela Express. Maybe we should make it more clear in Project:What is an article? that trains that are attractions (like Trans-Siberian Railway) are ok but trains like Acela Express are not. (WT-en) Sumone10154 08:13, 17 January 2011 (EST)

 * Delete or Merge. It's been 3 weeks already can somebody delete or merge this article? (and Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service) (WT-en) –sumone10154 21:54, 31 January 2011 (EST)

So, is someone going to do something about this? Or is every administrator just going to let this stay here forever? It's been here for 6 weeks already. (WT-en) –sumone10154 21:43, 17 February 2011 (EST)

 * Typically when a VFD is far from consensus it stays open for a while to provide as much opportunity as possible for the underlying issues to be resolved. If there's no activity for a long time then it will eventually be closed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:43, 17 February 2011 (EST)

 * There has been no activity for a month, is that long enough? (WT-en) –sumone10154 13:41, 18 February 2011 (EST)

 * Per policy any admin is technically allowed to close a VFD after 14 days, even if there is no clear consensus (the policy is that a VFD must achieve a "consensus to keep", otherwise the topic in question is deleted). However, I'm personally very interested in seeing some clarity in our policies regarding transportation lines, and as a result I haven't closed this VFD in the hope that someone will try again to move it to closure.  That's obviously a bit selfish, so if you or anyone else sees a good reason to close this discussion now please state it, but "14 days are up" doesn't seem compelling enough to make me want to end this (admittedly stale) discussion - understand that wikis are frustratingly slow, particularly when it comes to achieving a consensus on anything, but given enough time things usually get done. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:58, 18 February 2011 (EST)

 * "14 days are up" might not be a compelling reason, but I think "1 month without any activity" would be a good reason. By the way, I was the one who created this article and the only contributor so I'm just going to redirect it to Rail travel in the United States along with Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service. (WT-en) –sumone10154 14:11, 18 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Rail travel in the United States along with Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service (WT-en) –sumone10154 20:01, 22 February 2011 (EST)

List of Scenic Railway Lines in Europe

 * Delete. An empty page without any information, and even if it did, all the information could be included in routeboxes. (WT-en) –sumone10154 17:17, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:32, 27 February 2011 (EST)


text:
Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2012

Daqin pagoda

 * Merge/Delete. An article about a pagoda is not a Wikivoyage article, per Project:What is an article? - with the following exceptions: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." Large and complex wouldn't seem to apply to what's described as "the oldest known church building in China," and it is clearly a viable day trip away from Xian. I'd suggest taking the essential information from this article and appending it to the "Get out" section of the Xian guide. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
 * "Get out" is for links to other destinations. It can't be both deleted as a destination article, and placed in a "Get out" section.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:32, 2 December 2011 (EST)
 * I didn't realize that all "Get out" items had to include a link to another article. In that case, the info could be inserted in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian, though I find that problematic because I think a day trip taking a couple of hours or more each way should really be in "Get out." (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 18:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)
 * I've never heard such a rule, LtPowers. As far as I know, the Get out section is for things that would be good as a daytrip, whether they actually have their own article or not.(WT-en) texugo 00:37, 3 December 2011 (EST)
 * Project:Big city article template says Get Out is for "Information about nearby destinations that would serve as a good 'next stop.'" I've never seen any case made for allowing non-destination listings in the Get Out section.  Think about it -- if it's an attraction, it belongs in "See" or "Do"; why make the reader check both places for something to do?  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)
 * Because it's 62 km from Xian and the trip from Xian to there takes 1-3 hours by bus. It's not an attraction in or even that close to the city. That's why it makes sense for it to be a "Get out." Is your alternative to put the information in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian? What would your distance limit be for that kind of subsection? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 00:06, 5 December 2011 (EST)
 * I agree with (WT-en) LtPowers. Attractions that are commonly visited from a destination should be in the See/Do sections of that articles. Get out is a what comes next in the journey section, and not for attractions that lie further afield (no matter how far).  The confusion in the heading has been discussed before, including here  --(WT-en) Inas 00:25, 5 December 2011 (EST)
 * Going by that linked discussion, we really ought to revisit the confusing "Get out" subtitle. However, in any case, would any of you like to weigh in on whether or not you support deleting the article in question and merging the information as appropriate into the relevant section of the Xian article? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 01:02, 5 December 2011 (EST)
 * I think it is an obvious candidate for merging. There are only a handful of attractions which justify their own article.  Doing the merge is the real issue.  If this was just merged and redirected I think no one would have raised an eyebrow on vfd.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:21, 7 December 2011 (EST)

 * Merge and redirect (per Project:Deletion_policy) to its own subsection of Xian. If we divide Shaannxi completely, and have a different bottom-level article, which would be more suitable, then the information can be moved there. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:43, 19 December 2011 (EST)
 * Agreed. merge (WT-en) Pashley 20:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)
 * Merge to Xian per Ikan. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:18, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:30, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux
A seemingly unnecessary region article. We already have articles on two of the towns (Houma and Thibodaux), the Acadiana region, and even some of the parishes within it. I would delete this, or at most, redirect it to Acadiana. (WT-en) Eco84 09:13, 12 December 2011 (EST)

 * I would recommend redirecting both this article and Thibodaux to Houma. It's more useful for travelers to just subsume the surrounding areas under Houma (most people refer to the whole area as Houma, anyway--if I'm not mistaken). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:37, 19 December 2011 (EST)

 * Merge to Houma per Peter. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:19, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 5 February 2012 (EST)

La Torre

 * Delete. Purely advertising article about a private hamlet that is apparently solely and completely occupied by an agroturism property which is appropriately listed in the Reggello guide as being within walking distance of Reggello and cannot in any case be listed in more than one article, per don't tout. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 21:59, 21 December 2011 (EST)
 * Redirect real places. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:10, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * Good point. Redirect is a better thing to do. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * Per further discussion below, I am changing my vote back to Delete. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 17:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * Delete. Agree with (WT-en) Ikan Kekek.  Not a common search term for redirect.  --(WT-en) Inas 14:41, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * One problem with a redirect is that "La Torre" just means "The Tower" in Italian and Spanish and could refer to any of thousands of towers in Italy and any number of other countries. So there would have to be a doozie of a disambiguation page if a redirect is approved. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:50, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * So, why would you vote for a redirect? Change your vote back to delete, and lets convince (WT-en) LtPowers to change his :-) Every time we create a redirect, we block the default search action, which find the term in each of the articles which they are mentioned in.   --(WT-en) Inas 17:07, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * Redirect per Project:Deletion policy. We don't need to disambiguate towers anymore than we would need to disambiguate museums—only actual destination articles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:30, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * Could you please have another look at this? I think you are coming to the wrong result.
 * There are also many places with this name. All with more significance than the article in question.
 * The way I see it, someone created this article for what is a completely private attraction. It is a farm stay, and olive farm.
 * If we redirect this private attraction article to a nearby town, at the expense of the many other places with the same name, I think we are truly going against the spirit of the VFD policy.
 * Lets just restore the status quo, and when someone actually comes along with an interest with clarifying the destination, they can do so. Attraction articles should be deleted.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 * Ah, this is actually just a business, which the linked policy above does recommend to delete. As an aside, I don't see how this is an attraction, a farm stay seems like accommodation. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * Page contributor reply Hi guys, just for explain : "La Torre" is a real suburbs of Reggello , it's the name of a place,an ancient hamlet on top of the Reggello hills. Anyway is right your comments below, a name "La Torre" is disambiguation, there are many words and many places called "La Torre" . Maybe i can change the name to : "Località La Torre" or " Località La Torre - Reggello" , think it's better. For the content i will delete what i wrote regard the agritourism , the olive farm, private house and link to , and write only a description of the place and maybe the history, when I have translated. Let me know what you think about the new page, and sorry for any inconvenience for my early contributions Martin (WT-en) MisterX 14.4, 23 December 2011 (EST) - Edit :  done the modify in the page , but i cant change the name to " Località La Torre "
 * I really would suggest that if you come to Wikivoyage to add information about your property or attraction, that you add it to an existing article where it would be of interest to visitors, rather than creating a new article for the information. It's better for you, clearer for the traveller, and easier on site administration. Of course, if you want to hang around, and participate in organising the geographical hierarchy of the area, you are incredibly welcome to do so. --(WT-en) Inas 18:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

 * I suggested "redirect" because Ikan said this was a hamlet, which would make it a real place and not just an attraction. If there are other places with this name, then it should be a disambiguation page.  If it's not really a community but just an attraction, then I'm fine with deletion.  Sorry for not researching further.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:54, 23 December 2011 (EST)

 * Delete If the name is too generic then let's just delete it unless those other places are cities rather than other attractions/districts. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 06:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

 * Delete. For the reasons given by others. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:16, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:35, 5 February 2012 (EST)

AIRPORT ZAGREB

 * Merge as necessary/Delete - I can't see a good reason why the requisite information couldn't be merged into the Zagreb guide as needed, with the article in question deleted. I don't see a need for a redirect, as "AIRPORT ZAGREB" is not a common search term in English. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 03:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
 * Delete - It's not really useful and mostly an ad for taxi company. (WT-en) Jjtk 05:28, 26 December 2011 (EST)
 * Delete. All the information that isn't an ad is a direct, and uncredited, copy of the text from Wikipedia without any particular travel relevance. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * Delete. Is the taxi worth mentioning in Zagreb/Get in? (WT-en) Pashley 02:05, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * Redirect per Project:Deletion_policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:42, 27 December 2011 (EST)
 * Delete. Developed as an ad. Not an article.  Unlikely search term (to that extent agree with (WT-en) Ikan Kekek) --(WT-en) Inas 19:31, 8 January 2012 (EST)
 * Delete since much of this is copied from Wikipedia without attribution and the term isn't a useful redirect term. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:20, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:36, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Mangrove Tour Langkawi

 * Speedy delete. This is a tour advertisement that should have been speedy deleted previously but was apparently overlooked.  User:(WT-en) Felix505 tagged it with a VFD earlier today, listing here for completeness. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:38, 5 February 2012 (EST)
 * I stopped listing such things here due to previous hints not to. That individual has been spamming the Malaysian articles pretty determinedly, some of it goes back a while and has taken some excavation work to undo, there maybe some more hiding under IPs. -- (WT-en) felix 14:15, 5 February 2012 (EST)

 * I listed it here per Project:Deletion policy: "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 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.".

 * While the article in question seems like a clear speedy delete, since it's been on the site for three months it seems best to put it through the normal VFD process. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Thai-english-subtitles.jpg and Image:Thai-english-subtitles2.JPG

 * Delete. These are both orphaned images of Thai script that I'm guessing may have been uploaded at a time when browser support for non-English characters was less prevalent.  Per the deletion policy there is no reason to keep orphaned images that are not likely to be re-integrated into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:50, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:F1170019.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable individual.  Per Image policy there is no reason to keep this. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Stav Elena.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable individuals.  Per Image policy there is no reason to keep this. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Saintmalo---350px.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image, and being only 350x163 and of such poor quality I can't imagine it would be likely to be re-integrated into any article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Prairie2.jpg

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a prairie dog in the Belfast Zoo.  Given its small size (216x150) and the fact that the Belfast article now has other, more travel-relevant images, this seems unlikely ever to be re-integrated into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Jaipur3.JPG

 * Delete. Recognizable individuals with no model releases provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Vancouver-districts.png

 * Delete. Orphaned map image that has been superseded by Image:Vcr districts 8.png. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:BambooBar Style.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a bar, delete per Image policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Map tokyo districts.png

 * Delete. Orphaned map image that has been superseded by maps currently displayed in the Tokyo article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Image:Cozy corner.jpg

 * Speedy delete, not a noteworthy location and the image is the subject of repetitive insertion into the Dharamshala article by an anon IP. It has been removed from the article by several editors at least 5 times in the last few weeks.--(WT-en) felix 23:52, 14 February 2012 (EST)
 * Sorry, connection problems today, just noticed this is a WT Shared image, I have listed it there now. -- (WT-en) felix 00:44, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:San Francisco/Nob Hill-Russian Hill

 * Delete. This article is 4+ years out of date and does not include any relevant travel information. (There is a mention of a bad charge and bedbugs, but the links are broken so there is no evidence of these claims. Even so, this article is still 4 years old!) It appears to be a personal attack on the previous owner of 4 hotels. Three of those hotels were sold since this article was written, the 4th was refurbished and renamed. Attempts to update anything were reverted, and once again, this is a travel site and the article is about a PERSON. Completely irrelevant. -- (WT-en) Purplestripedone 16:32, 22 February 2012 (EST)

 * Speedy keep. Talk page discussions are only deleted in cases of vandalism, touting or hate speech; the referenced discussion is none of those.  See Project:Using talk pages. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:23, 22 February 2012 (EST)

 * Archive. Talk page dscussions should be kept more-or-less forever as part of the wiki record. On the other hand, this is a personal attack and apparently outdated, there's no need to keep it visible. (WT-en) Pashley 00:40, 23 February 2012 (EST)

 * Speedy keep and Archive. Let me just point out that by "Speedy keep" I mean the talk page itself shouldn't be deleted - that's just silly. As for the content of the page, I agree with Pashley that it should be archived as it seems to be outdated at this point. That said, I don't see this as an unwarranted personal attack - Asterix deleted these hotel listings from Wikivoyage and, being a new user who had not yet gained trust, gave a justification for doing so. Granted, Asterix may have...let's say, gone beyond the call of duty in this case, but at its most basic this (offering justification for deleting listings) is what we want new users to do. While the information itself is outdated and we don't need it so visible now, I don't think we should point to this as an example of bad behavior. EDIT: Given the information that D. Guillaime posted below, I change my mind about this information being obsolete. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:57, 23 February 2012 (EST)

 * PerryPlanet, doesn't the VFD box need to stay on the page for 14 days? Why was it deleted? Also,I still fail to see how any of the info on this talk page relates to the goals of the Wiki site. It's about a person, not a place. 71.229.101.13 13:48, 23 February 2012 (EST)
 * I do apologize for removing the VFD box on sight; I thought someone had made a mistake in posting it there. However, talk pages are not to be deleted. You can question whether the content in the talk page is appropriate, but the talk page itself needs to remain as a place where users can discuss the article. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:58, 23 February 2012 (EST)

 * Speedy keep, as per talk page policy. I wouldn't consider it outdated, either; there have been ongoing attempts to overwrite it over the intervening years, both with advertising from the above anonymous IP just a few days ago, or simply trying to replace it entirely with a URL to one of the Colombini (planned?) properties .  It appears to remain a relevant caution for article maintenance.  — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 15:24, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Speedy kept. There is no deletion rationale provided here, and our policy is clear on when discussions should or should not be deleted. This seems a borderline abuse of the vfd process, and doesn't need two weeks. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:24, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Villa Romantica

 * Speedy delete. Article about a business, delete per Project:What is an article.  Listing it on the VFD page rather than deleting immediately since it seems to have been created in good faith rather than solely as an advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:55, 21 February 2012 (EST)

 * Speedy delete. I don't see the good faith. I do see the advertisement. It looks like a brochure, complete with a dead giveaway "Reach us" section. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:39, 21 February 2012 (EST)
 * If it is good faith, why not merge, minus touting, and redirect? It seems to be a real place. (WT-en) Pashley 21:35, 21 February 2012 (EST)
 * Per the deletion policy: "but articles about restaurants, bars, hotels, and other such commercial establishments should be deleted rather than redirected, in order to curb touting". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:47, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:30, 29 February 2012 (EST)

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