Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2009

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Delete The text is copied from http://www.miamihabitat.com/sunny_isles_info_en.asp by an IP address that doesn't seem to be part of the miamihabitat.com domain. The text makes the place sound more like a rental village and so a possible tout rather than a destination, so is it really an article? The page is also an orphan. I'm saying delete, but I'd be happy to hear some debate on the matter - I am not 100% sure on this one. (WT-en) Nrms 09:28, 11 February 2009 (EST)

  • Perhaps merge and redirect? Miami has the beginnings of a district split-up, doesn't look to me like it is complete. Someone who knows the area could add any info here that seems worthwhile (not much would be my guess) to a district article and redirect there. This prevents the toutish article being recreated down the line. (WT-en) Pashley 10:35, 14 February 2009 (EST)
  • Rename to Sunny Isles Beach (and edit mercilessly to de-tout, MoS, and so on). According to Wikipedia, there is an actual town by this name that is distinct from Miami itself. (A rather ... unusual ... town, based on the WP article, but it still qualifies as a destination.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:47, 1 March 2009 (EST)
  • keep: I just put new headings and tried to rearrange and clean it up a bit. I think if more people add to it, it's a keeper.
  • OK, so it's been moved to Sunny Isles Beach. However, I am leaving this discussion up until we're sure we've done the right thing here. The text is still a nearly verbatim knockoff of the corresponding Wikipedia article. I think our policy should be to edit it into conformity with our format rather than delete now; any objections? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Moved to Sunny Isles Beach. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:30, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Delete. This was marked by (WT-en) 2old. But not added here.(WT-en) ViMy 13:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:33, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

To duplicate what I wrote on the talk page: This article is improperly named, and appears to duplicate content for both Garden City (South Carolina) and Surfside Beach, which are separate municipalities. Any reason not to merge? I'll recommend a delete, only because a redirect would be difficult. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:37, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:35, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete - This appears to be a Turkish language promo for learning English as a second language. It appears to be a copyright violation of a posting on another wiki, with no attribution concerning its source. I cannot see it being a valid article name. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:44, 1 March 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy delete. (WT-en) Pashley 19:34, 1 March 2009 (EST)
    • Its Back! - Was reposted by an anonymous user. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:11, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Slow and Soft Delete - I think this page needs a more permanent deletion notice to discourage reposting. I suggest blanking the page and leaving the notice up til the end of the month, at least. Perhaps even protecting the page if it is reposted. Alternatively put the page name into the SPAM filter? - (WT-en) Huttite 06:11, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:02, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Not a valid article title, and the text was all in Maori.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:03, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Delete, Merge or Redirect. This article seems to deal with the town of Pozzallo, and could be merged with this article. A redirect to Sicily could also be a solution since Sicilia is italian for Sicily. (WT-en) ViMy 17:47, 28 February 2009 (EST)

  • Delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:44, 28 February 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect - Merge relevant info into the Pozzallo article and redirect this one to Sicily. (WT-en) Texugo 01:03, 1 March 2009 (EST)
    • The problem with that is we risk losing attribution for the content merged to Pozzallo if we don't redirect to that article. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:20, 1 March 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect The information is copied! The first section ("Describe...Iblea area") comes from , the rest seems like little pieces of different things. The first part of the 2nd paragraph comes from: and I think it's safe to assume the rest was copied sans license to do so (I'm too tired/lazy right now). If someone wants to rephrase and enter the text into Pozzallo...go ahead. Otherwise, redirect as, given the plagiarism, attribution is not important. (WT-en) AHeneen 02:45, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: redirected to Sicily. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:29, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Delete this article seems to be a joke. Not a real destination. (WT-en) ViMy 16:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

  • Just delete it, or is it worth moving the text to Project:Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense? (WT-en) Pashley 21:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)
  • I was thinking it was someone making an early start on an April Fools Day article. The only reference I can find to Krillville as a place is that it is a secret whale metropolis. Though the Wikivoyage article has a high rank in the search results! I think it is almost worth keeping as a joke. It would really be worth keeping if the whale theme was expanded mentioned. - (WT-en) Huttite 02:29, 1 March 2009 (EST)
  • BJAODN. (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:34, 1 March 2009 (EST)
  • Hmm. We do have April Fools' coming up in a month's time... (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:17, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted since sentencing deadline passed and no one voted keep. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:19, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

This serves no real purpose beyond serving as User:(WT-en) Jaromir.horejsi's itinerary for traveling across the US. The itinerary starts in an off-the-beat town, heads to the Rockies as fast as possible, then spends the whole time out west. While it might otherwise be to just turn it into a suitable article, I don't think there's any suitable/appropriate way to write such an article...so just delete it. Also, it has lots of pictures, all uploaded here and not to Shared, which should be deleted if not linked to any other article or at least moved to another appropriate article. (WT-en) AHeneen 00:12, 2 March 2009 (EST)

There's a lot of great pictures there, they should be used elsewhere despite the outcome of this vfd. But I kinda lean towards keep. It's a bit quirky.... but it is true that the western US is pretty much all that matters. If NYC and Chicago were in California, everything east of Colorado would be pretty much irrelevant to the world ;) For reals though.... There's countless variations of how you could do the states in 30 days.... and this one I don't think is any less valid than any other. It does need a bit of work, but there's a decent skeleton there – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:44, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. Valid concept for an itinerary; although the execution is lacking, the best way to solve that is by plunging forward with additions of your own. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:20, 7 March 2009 (EST)
  • Delete - It looks like the April Fools Jokesters are about. This is the second 1 April candidate I have found in a week! Amusing, somewhat, but not a valid article name for a destination, only an attraction, possibly. - (WT-en) Huttite 02:30, 3 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. A) Unless we now have access to machinations of time travel, I don't see how this can be an April Fool's joke seeing as it was created in early March. B) I have been to Forsaken House and reveled in its splendor. It is a real and wonderful place where many great, joyous and fantastical things have happened. Unfortunately I can't say the same for other places I've been to, like Staten Island or Kansas.(WT-en) Sluze 15:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Delete. Forsaken House appears to be a video game and doesn't register. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:19, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Delete -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:19, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Useful content should be merged into Ecotourism. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:00, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Delete. It is just an ad. Travel topics (unlike destination guides) should not be left languishing as stubs. --(WT-en) Inas 23:12, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

We do itineraries, sure, but we don't do private train trips, cruises, tours, etc. Do we? --(WT-en) Inas 06:50, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

  • No, we don't. Delete. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. It is a popular tourist trip and we seem to have a user willing to work on it. Why not encourage him or her? We do cover things like the Three Gorges boat trip, Felucca cruise on the Nile. This seems to me to be of the same ilk; one of the standard things to do in that country. (WT-en) Pashley 10:14, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. This is one specific tour operator (albeit owned by the gov't), and doesn't qualify as an article. There's been dissent on even having the much broader Rail travel in India article, so a much finer grained one doesn't really make sense. This train can easily be covered at India#Get around, and/or at Rail travel in India, if that article sticks around – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:02, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. As Pashley says, it's a popular trip, and one that takes about as long as the Trans-Siberian Railway too. The incredibly florid yet ungrammatical prose ("A journey absolutely corresponding to one’s odyssey through one’s world of whims and fancy"!?) needs some major weed-whacking though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:29, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. As one planning a visit to India, I think this information could be very interesting. May be out of my price range though. (WT-en) 2old 10:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. This train is one of India's biggest tourist attractions, and the current article has enough info to justify keeping it around. While it doesn't fit into our typical geography-based hierarchy I agree with Jani that it's comparable to something like Trans-Siberian Railway and thus worth an exception under the "enough information to merit its own article" guideline. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:22, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge & Delete. It seems that there's already broad support to keep the article, but I agree with Cacahuate that, given we are talking about one specific tour operator, it makes more sense to merge it into Rail travel in India. This article isn't very large; I think merging can reasonably be done. As a comparison, Rail travel in the United States had info about a private train tour operator very similar to Palace on Wheels before said operator went out of business. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
See, I don't think the article is about "a specific tour operator", but a specific itinerary around northern India. Would it make sense to recast the article so that it covers the route both as the "packaged" Palace on Wheels, and a roll-your-own version on normal trains? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, that would make sense to me. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 00:03, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
The Palace on Wheels is very much a specific tour operator, on a route that is covered by many modes of transport, and doesn't offer anything unique other than a more cushy seat.... everything that needs saying about it (it's luxurious, pricey, food's good) can be said in like 3 sentences at Rajasthan#Get around. A separate article on it would be taking us in somewhat of a new direction, and I think down a slippery slope... not to mention that there isn't even enough to say about it to fill even a small article, that wouldn't be total fluff or misplaced... so I stand strong that it should be deleted.
If the route were somewhat interesting and in need of a general itinerary, then I would agree we could morph it into that and cover all of the transport options.... but the tour they do is quite straight forward and run of the mill, and just covers the major destinations in Rajasthan, hitting all the spots that visitors to Rajasthan hit anyways, regardless of their method of transport... I don't really see much value in it as a broad itinerary article either, which would need to be written from scratch by someone who cares... there isn't existing info in this article that helps in figuring that out, so I don't see that we need to discuss Rajasthan itinerary articles further on the VFD page... we should stick to discussing this article that's up for VFD.... and imo, it's not even close to qualifying :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:19, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Looks like a possible copyvio, but the main for reason for deletion is that there is no license specified. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:25, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

  • Outcome: Deleted - no one voted and I had to assume it was guilty. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:38, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
Delete. I have no clear evidence of a copyvio, but I'd put money on it.. --(WT-en) Inas 23:55, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
Delete. Couldn't tell you where it's from originally, but it appears to be a downsized version of this image, which is detailed enough to show it's a scanned copy of a print map. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:17, 8 May 2009 (EDT)
Evidence enough. Speedy Delete copyvio. --(WT-en) Inas 01:21, 8 May 2009 (EDT)
It's on shared, not :en. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:31, 8 May 2009 (EDT)
Misspelled and one or two lines fit elsewhere if useful. --(WT-en) Rein N. 16:10, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:12, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete While it looks like a lot of work went into this, it just doesn't fall under policy for an article as far as I can tell. It's a page that is likely to get out of date fairly quickly (given experinece of Arriva), and just imagine what would happen if we ended up with every town having this sort of page. Surely this is something where we're best off linking to the operator website and absolve ourselves of any responsibility. (WT-en) Nrms 13:26, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete I have found some route info which could be placed under transport in the leicester ARTICLE ! (WT-en) Mopatel 14:55, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete No content. Not a destination, rather an ethnic group. (WT-en) ViMy 16:21, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: speedy deleted. No content, non-article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete: Hotel ad. Not a destination. Will "educate" user. (WT-en) Nrms 05:12, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted - advertisement. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:18, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete: I think. Part of a graffiti run by an IP user. This one doesn't seem to be a place, but a temple, or a river, or something! (WT-en) Nrms 09:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete: Not a destination. Probably not likely to be a travel topic. Content is not travel-related. (WT-en) Nrms 07:16, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Not a real city. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

OK, no problem with a redirect. My only worry with the redirecting over deleting is that you end up being sent through 101 redirections to get somewhere, which could get a little messy! But that's a policy discussion for another day perhaps.
Do we still need to let the 14 day period pass, or are you happy for me just to go ahead and do the redirects and then archive these vfds? (WT-en) Nrms 10:06, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
Sure, you can just speedy these. Redirection shouldn't occur more than once, since we should avoid creating any double redirects—just be sure to update the links to the now defunct pages to point to the new ones. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirected: Also changed associated redirects on other Old Trafford pages to stop the double redirections. LtPowers, only reason I say not worth redirecting was the lack of pages that linked into them (i.e. just the Manchester talk page). (WT-en) Nrms 23:12, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
    • I know; I just thought it was odd, since redirecting them is easier than creating a deletion discussion and then deleting them. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:35, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

I am not exactly recommending for deletion, but this Ikeda is now Miyoshi in Tokushima. There are other Ikeda cities, though, so I think after the content is moved to Miyoshi, the page should become Ikeda (Osaka) or Ikeda (Fukui). It's a little confusing now, because Wikivoyage's Ikeda is non-existant, but there are real Ikeda cities elsewhere. Also, the map on the Tokushima page would need to be updated...

Oppose. Ikeda is only Miyoshi in the feverish imaginations of Japanese bureaucrats, but by any other standard it's still a separate town. Hell, in theory, all of the Iya Valley — one of the least populated places in all Japan — is a part of Miyoshi "city"! (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:03, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
I had created the Miyoshi page in case it was agreed to merge, but if others agree that it shouldn't be placed there, then should the Miyoshi page be nominated for deletion? Overlap would seem counterproductive... Also, perhaps a disambiguation page is needed, since there are at least two other cities by the same name. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 08:33, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
Nah, just make it into a redirect pointing into the components we've split it into, which would be Ikeda, Iya Valley, and Oboke and Koboke.
And yes, the current Ikeda should be made into Ikeda (Tokushima) and the original Ikeda disambigged. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:50, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
I made the disambiguation page and linked all the links to Ikeda from Tokushima to the new Ikeda (Tokushima) link. I think I did it correctly, but feel free to check, since it's my first disambiguation creation. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 12:17, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
Looking good, but next time, please move the original article to the new name instead of just copying so that the edit history comes along. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:01, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Just a pizza ad (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:50, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Keep. It's a real place (an outer suburb of Melbourne, Australia), so I gave it a template; in a day or two after the anon user's done playing around, it should be easy to trim out the silliness and return it to a sparse, but valid, small city article. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:50, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
I did the trimming. May be merged one day, but seems alright for now. --(WT-en) inas 19:25, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
  • delete - Not a user page! Bad taste has no place here. (WT-en) Rein N. 07:45, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
Speedy deleted this and a similar one. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 09:57, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

All appear to be copyvio'd — along with the text from Tiruchendur — from here. (And largely useless as well.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 02:27, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted. I went ahead and speedied these per wts:User talk:(WT-shared) Prabukanth. I left him that message the day before he uploaded these, so presumably he uploaded them here to avoid deletion there. The fact that he uploaded them post-removal of any link to en:special:upload makes this decision even more straightforward imo. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

This should be a speedy delete (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:44, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Done. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:29, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Well I know that this isn't really what the vfd is really for, but I definitely think it deserves a vfd I guess. There is no reason to really have this anymore on Wikivoyage and to me it's a burden to the site. It'd be nice if it was gone. These issues seem to be resolved, and instead of wasting space on silly arguements, lets use it for excellent travel guides. To me it's really stupid keeping it here and there isn't a reason to keep it. If you think there is then I probably don't know it so please say. Let's just move on =). (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:01, 27 May 2009 (EDT).

Deleted. Pages within a user's sandbox don't need to go through the VFD process if the VFD is requested by that user. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:05, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2009&oldid=4924273"