Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2006

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

  • A person, not a place; copyvio content; speedy? ~ 203.144.143.2 06:50, 16 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The text that was removed was a copyvio and this is a person, not a place. I am okay with a speedy delete. Anyone else? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 06:55, 16 September 2006 (EDT)
I agree, if this can become and atricle, then keep... otherwise delete. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 19:46, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete unless someone wants to turn it into an itinerary along the lines of On the trail of Marco Polo. That's the only way I know of you can have an article here on a person. It has been suggested for Alexander; I suppose it would work for the Khan. (WT-en) Pashley 02:44, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
  • I'd lean toward deleting, but not speedy; let's see if anyone can make a case for it as an itinerary. It's unlikely, but let's let the system work. (The original text certainly has no business being there.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:40, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Agreed. Removing the original text was right; it was a copyvio and totally irrelevant in a travel guide. The aricle as it stands (empty) is an obvious deletion candidate. Beyond doubt it should go if it is unchanged after 14 days. However, I don't think the question is whether anyone can 'make a case' for an itinerary. I'd say the case has been made; the question is whether anyone will do the work. I would, but I don't know enough and haven't time to do research right now. (WT-en) Pashley 02:08, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:23, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I can find few results that note this is an actual place, which leads me to believe the place is too small to become a valid destination guide. Wikipedia displays no results for Talwel nor does Getty's Thesaurus of Geographic Names . Google has few results for a village by this name. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 02:52, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
  • If there's only one possible place, keep & redirect.
Keep. If it doesn't warrant an article, redirect to Jalgaon (district) ~ 203.144.143.5 09:42, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Marked as a copyvio since August. -- (WT-en) Ryan 05:49, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 22:03, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Marked VFD back in August, but apparently never listed on this page. Orphaned image. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:50, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. The image is compatible with our copyleft. Also, we could move it to Shared and I could make use of it on DE and EN. I'm sure the PL people could use the image too. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 21:01, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Looks like a clear keep based on the CCSA release. Ryan, why do you think that's insufficient? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:12, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
    • No problem with keeping this one, I listed it here solely because someone had tacked a VFD notice on it but never listed it on this page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:19, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I moved all Warsaw and some Poland images to wts:. AFAIR I listed all the moved images here and most were then speedy deleted from en. Anyway, this particular image is now at wts:Image:Warsaw-Metropolitan-Building-Norman-Foster.jpg. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 09:34, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
    • OK, that's one of the accepted reasons for a delete. (It is indeed on WT Shared.) As I read the guidance, this doesn't require a vote. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:27, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Marked VFD back in August, but apparently never listed on this page. A Shalom Alochem image, so likely copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:52, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Has a link to source at Wikimedia Commons. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:10, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Looks like a clear keep to me, based on the release language at Commons. WTP? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:36, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
    • Listed here solely because someone else marked it VFD but never listed on this page; according to the deletion policy, a VFD image should be listed here for discussion. In addition, this user has uploaded dozens of images and marked them either public domain or CC-SA, and we later had to delete them because they turned out to be copyvios. In this case it looks like the image is OK. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:52, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
  • See above. Moved to wts:Image:Poznan-Market-Square.jpg. I believe I did list these images here. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 09:34, 7 October 2006 (EDT)

I'm not sure what this is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a phrasebook. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:51, 1 October 2006 (EDT)

  • Keep: I have changed this by putting in a region template. It is much better to discuss policy changes prior to implementation. Suggest the proposal above by the anon be discussed and a consensus reached before setting policy. refer discussion to Project:Geographical hierarchy -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:20, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
It has been mentioned on the Talk:Prince George's County page by User:(WT-en) Jonboy that a county breakdown is not needed for Maryland, based upon that, I don't object to deleting or redirecting this. I just don't want to "turn on" a massive effort to redirect all county pages I suspected that was starting. I would hope we would discuss that and come to some sort of agreement on massive redirects before implementation. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 11:16, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep/Redirect. This county often gets referred to as a location. I could see someone saying "where can we eat in PG" and searching for this name. But I agree that this shouldn't spark a massive effort to redirect. Clarke County, GA, to pick another place I've lived, is not some place that I think needs to be redirected. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 21:28, 24 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, at least for now. PG County (where I lived briefly) is fairly "urban," and a time may come when everything of interest in it is covered by some other article. Until then, given the fact that places are indeed described as being in "PG," it's a service to the traveler to have the article around. It certainly does extend far enough away from Washington DC that some things can best be described as being there, rather than in the Capital Region. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:39, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

Consensus seems to be to keep this. I'm archiving the discussion. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:38, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

  • Marked as VFD back in August. Should either redirect to Casa particular (my vote) or else both articles should be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:02, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Marked VFD back in August, but apparently never listed on this page. License is apparently GFDL, not CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:58, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's from Commons (and indeed GFDL), but not uploaded by the creator, CC-SA or no CC-SA. Can't keep it under those circumstances, although it's a nice shot. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:54, 10 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Marked VFD back in August, but apparently never listed on this page. A Shalom Alochem image, so likely copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:52, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:10, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
  • I've been looking for this at WP, Commons, etc., and not finding it. Yes, the source is suspicious, but are we convinced it's a copyvio? I'd hate to get into a pattern of deleting images that do have release language attached, simply in the absence of evidence that it's legit. Suggest a diligent search before deciding on this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:43, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
    • Take a look at User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem, as well as this user's history. We've already deleted dozens of images uploaded by this user that were marked CC-SA or public domain and proved to be copyrighted elsewhere. Someone else marked this image VFD but didn't list it on this page, so I listed it here according to the deletion policy, but given the user's history I wouldn't be comfortable keeping this without more specific attribution. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:52, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
      • Right, got that, I remember the avalanche of copyvio pics. However, I can't find any evidence that this one is a copyvio, despite having looked. If someone has that, present it and the image is gone. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:59, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete for three reasons: (1) unused, (2) possible copyvio, (3) better images available in Commons. Or move to wts:Category:Poland. BTW I've listed other unused Poland images at User:(WT-en) CandleWithHare/Test -- they should be either deleted or moved to wts: as well. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 09:48, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
  • An attempted itinerary, but contained copyvio text from http://www.himalayanglacier.com/. Now, it's simply a blank page with a vfd template. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 03:24, 26 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, or if someone suggests a suitable redirect then redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:23, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Finland province maps

[edit]

Appears to be copies or modified versions of images on Wikipedia Commons, licensed under GFDL only. Total 6 images. --(WT-en) Adestro 03:34, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Keep. Here is permission from the author, dual-licensing them as CC by-sa 1.0 — in Finnish, alas, but "OK" means the same thing in most languages... (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:04, 4 October 2006 (EDT)
Well, I supose this can be closed then. --(WT-en) Adestro 07:38, 4 October 2006 (EDT)
Speedy keep. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 19:31, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:38, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. User:Seav's home page states that all his contributions (including images) are multi-licensed under CC by-sa 1.0 and 2.0. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. An index to the various article status pages, which is not the type of thing we've used templates for in the past. If we're going to start implementing templates for indexes then we should probably discuss first and modify Project:Using Mediawiki templates to expand the list of acceptable template uses. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:00, 29 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:05, 29 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. As mentioned on the Project:Votes for deletion, this appears to be an experiment to see if links here raise a site's Google rank. Entire content is one link which is neither particularly interesting nor at all related to travel. The "user" has made only one "contribution"; this page. (WT-en) Pashley 07:35, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
    • I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of deleting user pages unless they contain hate speech or blatant spam. Quoting from Project:User page help: "It's possible for other users to edit, change, delete, move, overwrite, add to, or otherwise mess around with User pages or subpages. It's generally considered bad form to do so, though, unless invited by the user.". My feeling is that it's probably not a good idea to start policing user pages unless they are obvious violations. That's just me though - others may have different opinions. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:23, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
    • I too feel this way. Although, I think an exception for vandalism should be made too (I.e. User:(WT-en) OIdPine with a capital "eye" instead of lowecase "elle"). -- (WT-en) Sapphire 21:29, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
    • See second paragraph in Project:Deletion_policy#Deletion_procedure. Based on the difference between first and second edits of the page in question, it looks to me as if someone (original creator? can't tell from ISP address) already requested a delete. If someone can tell easily whether the ISP is that of the original creator, and it turns out to be, this can be deleted without compunctions. If not, keep it, for the reasons Ryan gives. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:09, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
  • I don't see a consensus either way here, so any objection to just keeping this page? If the user in question really does want it deleted they can also request it be deleted in the future. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:48, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
Keep. It was created for use on Mediawiki:Newarticletext. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 16:19, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A biography about Dolly Hodge, who is not a destination nor a valid travel topic. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 13:58, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete Pfft (WT-en) OldPine 19:44, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
  • This one qualifies as a speedy-delete. I'll do the honors shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:10, 17 October 2006 (EDT)

Uninhabited island, not a destination. Covered in Tioman. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:55, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Coral Island and create a disambiguation page there, since there appears to be at least two other destinations referred to as "Coral Island" in the world: Ko Hae near Phuket and Ko Larn near Pattaya. Ko Hae at least apparently has a resort, and Ko Larn is inhabited although I can't tell if it has tourist facilities. I suspect we'd probably prefer to use the Thai names for those, but a disambiguation page might be helpful to travellers. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:25, 12 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Hypatia's argument looks sound to me, and there may be readers who look for a place by this name; the result should be a redirect to a useful article, not "ain't none." -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:14, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Tioman. --(WT-en) Terence Ong 02:55, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
Was redirected to Coral Island, per two suggestions. (WT-en) Hypatia 23:47, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
Speedy deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 00:31, 18 October 2006 (EDT)

Not being maintained by anyone, and hopelessly out of date. I have created a Category:Articles needing attention which I have hidden inside the style template. That way, someone can keep a watch on the page and maintain it. I would have loved it if the category page could be geographically ordered using isIn, but this will have to do for now. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:24, 9 October 2006 (EDT) (P.S. If the Consensus(tm) says delete, I undertake to clean out the page before deleting.)

  • Redirect to Category:Articles needing attention. I like your new solution a lot since it no longer requires manual intervention. The only downside is that there isn't any way to leave a comment about what needs to be fixed, but it's probably better to include that info on the discussion page of the article in question anyhow. The only objection I could find to getting rid of this page before was Project:Articles needing attention#Redirect this page?, and there was only one objector. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:08, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

An attraction (in Lisbon), not a destination needing an article. Page only contained vandalism (removed). -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:14, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete. Photograph of a publically displayed sign. Being publically displayed is not the same thing as being released into the public domain, so this is a copyright violation. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:37, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, although it's useful. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 13:07, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Photograph of a publically displayed sign. Being publically displayed is not the same thing as being released into the public domain, so this is a copyright violation. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:37, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, although it's useful. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 13:07, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploader claims to have created the image which is obviously a copy of a ski-area map which he did not in fact create. Request for clarification has gone without response since 8 September. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:48, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Lacks proper copyright notice regarding who took the picture. Request for clarification has gone without response since 8 September. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:48, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 13:07, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Lacks any copyright info. Request for clarification has gone without response since 8 September. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:48, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 13:07, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Contrary to popular belief ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation) does not release it's products into the public domain and therefore is incompatible with our license. From ODOT's site: "The information provided on this Web site is a product of ODOT and is not to be sold or otherwise distributed for profit." -- (WT-en) Sapphire 01:45, 12 October 2006 (EDT)
  • I don't think this contributes anything. Also, an external links magnet. Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 22:06, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete in current form. It's mostly encyclopaedic and link-farmy with a smattering of lukewarm opinions about keeping in touch and the like. Do we have non-platitudes to offer on this subject? I don't. It's just as hard as writing an article about "how to write emails home". (WT-en) Hypatia 08:26, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
    • Merge with Travel writing (which could also contain a section on writing other personal travel accounts) (WT-en) Hypatia 17:24, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete As Perry Mason used to say, "Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Also bogus. (WT-en) OldPine 16:34, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I don't see much potential here except as a definition, and a mere definition doesn't fit the project. (WT-en) SHC 18:18, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
  • We really need to offer this information for travellers. I don't think Wikivoyage is the appropriate place, but WikiHow offers a great platform for this type of article. In fact they have this article - Keep-a-Travel-Blog. Maybe interwiki links to WikiHow would be appropriate and add a link in the Travel writing article that Jani started a few days ago. -- Sapphire
  • Keep, or perhaps redirect to Travel writing if that article covers the ground. Having personal travel journals here is an explicit non-goal, but many travellers want to keep these and some will find them useful for planning, so we should have some links to them. However, being a web index is also a non-goal, so better to link to things like Wikihow. (WT-en) Pashley 19:28, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
    • I actually intended Travel writing to cover commercial travel writing, ie. the kind where you get paid. But I could see a section on just-for-fun blogging in there too. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:51, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
      • This is the solution I'd prefer: redirect this to Travel writing, with an appropriate section added to that article. Who will bell (or should I say blog) the cat? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:18, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Related issues are under discussion at wts:Wikivoyage_Shared:Travellers'_pub#Wikitours_-_a_non-goal.3F (Spanish and French versions have a place for personal accounts. Should everyone? Should Spanish & French ones go?) and Pub#Not_a_Travelogue (someone asking where travelogues go). I think we need a generic solution. However, I agree we don't want such accounts on Wikivoyage, or at the very least, not in the main namespace. Maybe having a page like this to link out to them is the best solution. It seems silly to ignore them completely; in one sense they are very much a "primary source". Just linking to World66 and suggesting people blog there does not seem to be a complete solution; there are so many other blogs already. (WT-en) Pashley 02:34, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
    • This isn't a personal account itself though... it's an article about travel blogs, not a travel blog itself. (WT-en) Hypatia 17:22, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to the newly created Project:Writers' Expedition, which isn't a perfect solution but is one that seems reasonable for now. Redirect wherever, I was just trying to find an alternative since Jani didn't like the Travel writing suggestion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:57, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
    • I think that Travel writing is the better place for the redirect, but a clear consensus seems to be emerging to keep the thing, so we can figure out the best redirect at leisure. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:42, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Rather than redirecting or deleting is it possible to keep this and make an article of it? I don't think we should really merge it with travel writing and there's likely to be enough information about the topic that it could stand on it's own. My biggest concern about letting it stand on its own is how many hundreds of links it may attract. I think Jani did a great job on Travel writing by giving an example of a service rather than making a list of do-it-yourself book publishers. I think we could do the same with this, and use a similar layout that Jani created for the writing article. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 16:02, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
  • So where do we stand on this? There are several comments about redirecting, several about keeping, and at least two clear deletes. Given the lack of any consensus I suspect a redirect is a good temporary solution - so would anyone be opposed to redirecting to Travel writing? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:32, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
    • The deed is done, but I'm not sure the last word has been spoken on this one; please continue the conversation on the appropriate talk page (this discussion has been copied there). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:16, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
  • WP copyvio about a river ~ 203.144.143.6 09:08, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
  • We also have Danube, which seems a reasonable region-type article, and Rhine, pointless in its current state. There are some itineraries, Along the Yangtze river and Along the Yellow river. which I think are OK since I wrote most of them. Is there a general rule we can come up with that will lead to good river articles? Can we apply it to Oder instead of deleting? (WT-en) Pashley 09:26, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
    • Rule of thumb is that we don't do region/destination articles for bodies of water. Itineraries are of course acceptable. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:32, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
      • So laying the copyvio aside for the moment, does "Along the Oder River" make sense as an itinerary? If so, redirect this article to something appropriately titled and start editing; if not, delete. Can someone make a case one way or the other? My gut feeling is that it might be an itinerary waiting to happen, but someone who knows the region better than I could help here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:38, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
        • I tend not to like having itinerary articles around unless there's someone who has at least outlined them, so I vote delete unless someone does. (WT-en) Hypatia 17:27, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
          • Fair enough, and the case hasn't been made despite ample time, so delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
    • So do we VfD Rhine and Danube as well? (WT-en) Pashley 16:51, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
      • Rhine is about the river, and looks like either a VFD or (preferably) redirect candidate to me. Danube is about the Danube Basin, and therefore looks like a valid region. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:50, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Central Europe. I wouldn't oppose deletion since it's not a valid article topic, but a redirect keeps it from coming back. I don't like the idea of keeping it as a possible itinerary since we could argue that just about anything is a possible itinerary, which is a slippery slope free-fall off a cliff. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:50, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Where are we on this one? There seem to be two delete votes, so delete? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:32, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) Pashley 01:47, 28 October 2006 (EDT)

From Mapquest and thus copyrighted. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:47, 14 October 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete, copyrighted images are prohibited on Wikivoyage. So this map on Wikivoyage definitely has to go. --(WT-en) Terence Ong 02:58, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

Violated Project:Privacy policy, and is a useless pic anyway. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:48, 14 October 2006 (EDT)

  • Apparently fails the can you sleep there test . Also, the Wayne County CVB lists no attractions in Congress. I suggest deleting this page and then include any sights or activities within the Wayne County regional page. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 20:16, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. The can-you-sleep-there test is as much about being the kind of place where one can sleep -- villages yes, malls no -- as whether there is an actual hotel. See North Dakota for all sorts of precedents for keeping places like this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:34, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
There's one huge difference between North Dakota and Ohio. North Dakota is the 4th least populated state so smaller villages like Congress may actually be a destination in North Dakota, but villages of this size in Ohio are far less likely to be a destination. After searching multiple resources I cannot believe this village would be anything more than part of the landscape during a Sunday drive.
Todd Ver Beek apparently has similar opinions since I quote him: "A small town or "census designated region" without lodging, restaurants, and/or identifiable attractions. (Info about these is usually best incorporated into an article covering a larger region.)" See more of his thoughts here - Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#What_MIGHT_NOT_get_its_own_article.3F. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 00:03, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
I am not sure why that small places in North Dakota would be more likely visited then small places anywhere else in the world. The most common reason small places are visited are because you have relative or friend there. I also believe we have room on Wikivoyage for small places, for sure if we have someone excited about creating information on the place. Ask your self this before voting to delete; If you had a friend or relative in in Congress and were going there to visit, wouldn't it be a travel destination for you? How small it too small? If I visit a relative there and sleep in their house, is that a place to sleep? Just the ramblings of someone who was born in a small town and loves to visit them. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:22, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
I do have relatives that I visit quite often in a very small town called Owensville, Clermont County, Ohio, but I would never create an article for Owensville because though it has 700 more residents than Congress does and is twice the size (0.4 square miles) of Congress it doesn't need an article. The eat/drink sections would be populated with the three gas stations in the town, and "see" would list "cows and corn". I could imagine cow tipping might fit under "do", but let's get real if there is nothing to do or see in the town there's no reason for the place to have an article on Wikivoyage. I have to argue if you have a relative's house to stay at the best option for you is to ask them what to do in the town and I'll bet if you have a relative in Congress they're going to say "Umm, cow tipping?" Owensville and Congress both belong in the respective parental regional guides. Seriously though, the anonymous user that created the page summed Congress up as "Congress doesn't have the things to do like eat, drink, and play golf, but it is a nice relaxing place to hang out to get away from things" can we not place Congress in the Wayne County guide and use his discription? If this was Wikiatlas I'd be all for Congress, but it's not Wikiatlas and we don't make a guide for every place that exists for the sole purpose census calculations. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 09:49, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
Possibly a good rule of thumb for places like this is "would you ever want to go there if you didn't know someone who lived there (who could presumably offer better information than any guidebook)". If the answer's no, it seems hard to see what purpose an article could possibly serve. --(WT-en) Paul. 13:25, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
Whether or not it's a "good" rule of thumb, it isn't a current criterion, and I would not presume to judge whether readers "want to go there." Either it's a destination or it's not, and by the criteria that we do use, it is. I repeat: Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:54, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
After reading over the policy there is nothing to indicate that current policy indicates this is a destination nor is there anything that say's it's not a destination. I'd like to clear that up immediately and discuss that here. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 20:44, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Merge and delete to Wayne County. --(WT-en) Terence Ong 02:54, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I think a discussion should be raised in general about wtf are we going to do with every little crossroads and where to split the gray areas. In the meantime it looks like a place for now, though the article should be mostly empty. Content for Sleep, for example, should just point to nearest town with a motel. -- (WT-en) Colin 04:05, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. My, you guys have been having a good old time on this! I love you all, even those who are wrong(tm). (WT-en) OldPine 19:43, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
  • The problem I have is that there isn't even a vague defination of destination and my big concern is that people are miscontsruing "place" to mean "destination". There are very big differences between a place and a destination. Please help me define what the definition of "destination". I truly believe Congress is not a destination because 1. There are no accommodations in Congress, there are no eateries, there are no bars, there are no sights in Congress. 2. The village is does not have a website. 3. The village is not covered in Wayne County's CVB website. 3. There are no hits on Google that suggest Congress is a destination. We really need to define what a destination is, because I don't believe that because a place has a semi-important thoroughfare makes that place a destination. Tom, Bill, Colin, Terrence, David, Paul will you guys please help me define what a destination is. I've started a discussion here. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 20:13, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep It's a bit of a close call, what with the campground, but I think it stays. Travel != Tourism and we should avoid any prescriptive destination selection on the basis of would visit or should visit. (WT-en) Maj 10:11, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
The campground actually belongs in West Salem or West Salem (Ohio), which seems to actually be a destination. I'd be more than happy to create that guide once the Wayne County CVB's website is back online. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 10:54, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
  • I have no idea why I feel so passionately against Congress so don't ask me why I hate this place so very much. Anyhow, I've called the Wayne County CVB and I asked the woman who answered the phone if they could send me information about Congress. She laughed when I asked that and then stated "Congress is nothing." I asked her to elaborate and she couldn't she just said there was nothing there. Even the bureau in charge of promoting this region is of the same opinion that I am. CVB's phone number: 330-264-1800. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 11:39, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
I thought we were talking about Congress in Ohio. If you mean the one in Washington, DC, I'm with you. (WT-en) OldPine 16:39, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep is my vote, separate article, not merged. Sounds like Wikivoyage "will" be the most complete travel guide with coverage of places like Congress. I have got to say, may not be much of a place, but if I ever get close, I will visit. As time goes on we will see more people who are from small places, towns and villages finding the "wiki way" and making sure that their spot DOES have coverage. In my mind, the lack of coverage from anybody else, including some lady sitting in a town of 24,000 that thinks a place with a population of 197 "is nothing", is all the more reason for us to set aside a few bytes to coverage of Congress. I am not saying we need to cover a junction with or without a gas station, but if you go to Google, there are streets, people, post office and believe it or not.... It is a destination for at lease one Wikivoyageer that created the article. If this one is deleted, then we need to come up with a policy of places we delete that are larger then just a crossroad and start doing a clean up, we have a lot of places that are small but bigger then a crossroad. Now, if we start including crossroads... then I know a few of those also. ha! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 06:26, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
I'm working developing a prototype of what a regional page may look like if we merge small places. I will probably always maintain that this is not a destination and I think we need to work out what exactly to do with these places. Congress has 1,346 bytes why not merge those 1,346 bytes and make Wayne County a much more useful guide? If you would please add your thoughts to the discussion about what to do about "every dot on a map". If you search for that phrase it should pop up. Anyhow, I'm working on this prototype I think it will make our regional guides much more useful and prevent fairly pointless guides from being created. Hopefully, I'll be able to 'unveil' it soon. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 06:52, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
I can see a consensus here and just to make this easier for whoever is on clerical duty for the day after tomorrow (October 29th) I vote keep and void my previous delete vote. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 20:44, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Author slapped the "I made this and it's PD" template on here, but did not further describe it. Who knows if the author understood this or really meant it. Request for clarification Sept 8 has not been replied to. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:55, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
    • Wait a minute. So now we're deleting images because, even though they do have the required release language, we suspect the language might not be serious or well-informed? Think this through; absolutely all conditions for releasing the image have been satisfied, and submitting to cross-examination was not among them, so keep. Same applies for the following images. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:03, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
      • We've had dozens of copyvio images that have been marked by the uploader with "public domain" or some other license, either due to the uploader not understanding the licenses, language issues, or other reasons, so it's not unreasonable for Colin to be suspicious of these images, and he has requested clarification from the uploader. I've done a quick web search, but the only other place I've found these images is from (apparently) the same uploader at Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cuba-casa-particular-old-havana-patio.jpg. The red flag (for me) is the size of these images - images from a digital camera are usually at least 800x600, while images copied from a web site are normally smaller; the vast majority of the time when I've searched the internet for a small Wikivoyage image it's eventually proven to be a copyvio. In this case a "taken by" notice would solve the problem, but without that I don't think deleting is unreasonable in order to guarantee that Wikivoyage content remains free-as-in-speech. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:16, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The timestamp at the bottom of the image isn't particularlly useful or illustrative. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 11:01, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Author slapped the "I made this and it's PD" template on here, but did not further describe it. Who knows if the author understood this or really meant it. Request for clarification Sept 8 has not been replied to. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:55, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The timestamp at the bottom of the image isn't particularlly useful or illustrative. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 11:01, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Author slapped the "I made this and it's PD" template on here, but did not further describe it. Who knows if the author understood this or really meant it. Request for clarification Sept 8 has not been replied to. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:55, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The timestamp at the bottom of the image isn't particularlly useful or illustrative. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 11:01, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Lacks copyright and license. Request for clarification Sept 8 has not been replied to. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:55, 11 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The timestamp at the bottom of the image isn't particularlly useful or illustrative. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 11:01, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Page about a ballet theatre. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:10, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect. I am not against deleting, the page should not be an article, but a redirect would help to prevent recreation, does not use much space and search engines like them. But delete is okay. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:24, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Does not illustrate anything travel related (unless "this restaurant does, in fact, serve drinks" is considered travel related). -- (WT-en) Colin 20:27, 17 October 2006 (EDT)

Article about a football (soccer) stadium. Not a destination. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:54, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

Keep as a redirect page. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 20:51, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, an article about Wembley Stadium is not need for Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Terence Ong 05:53, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete nuh-nuh, naah, naah. hey, hey, heyy. Goood bye yie. (WT-en) OldPine 19:36, 17 October 2006 (EDT) Redirect to Wembley (and improve the Wembley article. (WT-en) OldPine 06:55, 30 October 2006 (EST)
  • Retain - Doesn't the stadium count as a desitnation in its own right, seeing as its size and importance are very big so far as attractions go? If there's a separate article about Disneyland, why not Wembley? Where exactly are we proposing to move the information too anyway? The article about London? 88.105.47.184 16:06, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
Take a close look at Project:What is an article?, we have never had a football stadium article and I am pretty sure it will not happen this time. That said, there are places where this information belongs and we would hope you would help with that. Also, if you don't like the policy about stadium's you would be welcomed to the talk page for what is an article? and open a discussion. The information in the article would likely go in the Wembley article (which has not been created yet). You could start that article and put all the information there and then link to it from various places including London. Hope this helps. One other thing... although not necessary, it would be good if you create an account and then it would be easy to communicate directly and put information on your talk page. Thanks! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 07:17, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
Hey there. Apologies about the username, it was actually myself commenting, but I'd forgotten to sign in. I see where you're coming from, and moving the article to Wembley would be fine and is something we can do in the next couple of days if no-one else expresses an opion I suppose. Cheers. (WT-en) Victor Greenstreet 16:12, 21 October 2006 (EDT)
Update: Article merged and redirected to Wembley. (WT-en) Victor Greenstreet 15:57, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Wembley. redirects are cheap and search engines love them. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:24, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Wembley. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:58, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
  • I'm not happy with this solution. The Wembley article is an outlier that appears not to fit into the well-developed London district structure. Why should this not be subsumed in something that fits the structure and already exists? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:39, 29 October 2006 (EST)
I'm not against your suggestion and agree that would be a good solution. What do you have in mind specifically? Is there a district where it fits? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 07:15, 30 October 2006 (EST)
There is a consensus to redirect apparently, the argument now is just where to redirect to and whether to merge, so I'm archiving and the discussion can continue on the talk page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:25, 31 October 2006 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2006&oldid=4924262"