Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2010

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

A cruise ship and a cruise line respectively.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Obviously valuable information. It needs to be merged somewhere but where would you propose putting it? We never came to a clear consensus last time we discussed cruise lines. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:39, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
The same user has made edits here inserting names of cruise lines, I guess with the intention of starting an article for each. I would err on the of caution as I can see this becoming a slippery slope. Airline articles likewise - I am not quite sure why we have them. With articles about Cruise lines and Airlines, what next? Hotel groups? Bus companies? Tour agencies? It feels very slippery indeed.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:24, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I am definitely in agreement with Burmesedays here, this is a very slippery slope. And I really see no good information in either of these articles, especially an article about a cruise ship. I think we should take a very hard line here; the Cruise ships article does a good job covering the general topic, and we should leave it at that - leave the specific cruise line/ship info to other sources, as that info is going to be 1) too much, 2) too unmaintainable, and 3) too undefined (as in, where exactly do we draw the line?) for Wikivoyage. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

It's probably best that we revisit Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article#Cruise_ships before coming to decisions on these. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:16, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

I have re-opened that discussion.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:10, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

The issues around cruise ship articles still aren't resolved, leaving these two nominations in a somewhat ambiguous state. The discussion on Project:What is an article#Round 2 seemed to be moving in a direction that would lead to creating broader articles with redirects for smaller topics like these, so would anyone be opposed to treating these two articles as "keep" and then converting them to redirects if/when that discussion reaches some consensus? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:00, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Policy discussions on cruise lines are ongoing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:17, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

The text is a copyvio, so the question arises again - to keep an article with no content?

  • Delete. The pictures can be easily incorporated into Hill End. --(WT-en) inas 07:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect, as we should always do with real places for which we don't have unique articles. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:59, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm not aware of many other roads that we have redirected - but these things do slip by me. I thought the current trend was to lean towards deletion of itinerary-like articles. --(WT-en) inas 19:25, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I believe there are too many bridle tracks in the world to have a single redirect, and none of them would anyway qualify for an article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:41, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge (into Bathurst?) and Delete. Peter is correct in that there must be thousands of bridle tracks in the World, but the information here could be deemed interesting/useful to someone visiting the area.Delete Just noticed that it's also said to be a copyvio. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:01, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that hasn't been edited in over two years, which is cause for deletion per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:20, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete(WT-en) Tarr3n 05:07, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that hasn't been edited in over eleven months. 11.5 months rounds up to one year, which for itineraries is the length of time they can remain outlines before a VFD nomination. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:20, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge into Saranac Lake. Hate to lose this info. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:39, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge template added for Saranac Lake. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. The image apparently is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0, but it seems based on copyrighted maps. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:03, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
  • The image is hosted at shared and should be discussed there. You are right though. God only knows how this map has survived so long at Wikivoyage.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:47, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: No action. The image is hosted on shared: and as a result we can't do anything about it from en: Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:53, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Outline itinerary that hasn't been edited in 14 months. The sections on Armenia and Azerbaijan might be salvageable, but they look pretty bare-boned to me. I would prefer to see it at a different title, too. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:50, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Caucasus. I know the area well, so I'll have a go at creating a simple, but usable itinerary for the region before the vfd is up, and save what is useful from this one. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 07:03, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Caucasus. Although the outcome was clearly "redirect", comments about "saving what is useful" lead me to believe that this is actually a "merge & redirect", hence the action taken. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:34, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

You certainly cannot sleep there. Indeed it is illegal to even visit there. Not really appropriate for a travel guide. A short para at Andaman Islands maybe?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:45, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

It's a real place. Needs to at least be a redirect, but I don't see a problem with a brief article that says (essentially) "This is not a place you can visit." (WT-en) LtPowers 09:02, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
A redirect I think. It does not pass the test of can you sleep there? and additionally it is illegal to visit there. What possible use could this article be to a traveller?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:54, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect (sadly since it sounds like a very cool place to be in) to Andaman and Nicobar. Perhaps we can have a short, generic mention at Andaman and Nicobar#Stay safe, for those who happen to be nearby somehow, to avoid contact (landing or otherwise) at all costs due to both it being outlawed by the de jure government and also it is extremely dangerous because of the hostility of locals towards outlanders. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:06, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
Whoops, the "stay safe" issue has already been addressed in the article. I thought I had checked that, but it seems I was looking at the "stay healthy" section of the same article instead. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:10, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect. There are tour companies of questionable morality that specialize in "contacting" uncontacted peoples. But even they won't get past the hailstorms of spears and arrows with which the Sentinelese greet Indian helicopters. Can't sleep here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:58, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
  • KeepAbstain. The can't sleep there rule isn't meant to exclude places you can't visit, but rather discount articles on the type of places that you couldn't normally sleep. I fully support (WT-en) LtPowers idea of just a short article saying it is not a place you can visit. --(WT-en) inas 20:11, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
Why put that information about this island into an empty article instead of consolidating it where it is currently (at Andoman & Nicobar)? Should we create stubs for each tiny island in the chain? This seems poor organization. We rule out places at which you cannot sleep in order to prevent the proliferation of useless articles that disperse content. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:22, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
Even leaving aside "can't sleep there", common sense surely says that a travel guide should not have articles about places which are impossible to visit? We already specifically exclude uninhabited islands and I can see no value at all in a stubby article about a place nobody can visit.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:27, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
@(WT-en) Burmesedays We have uninhabited islands, some even reach the top level of the Australia, for example Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands, I don't think they are specifically excluded by any policy I am aware of, and I'm sure I could dig up a few other examples too. Wake Island, of course, is our famous example where people have been proud to document an island you can't go to. Sometimes, in a travel guide, information on where and why you can't go is important too, and there seems agreement on that. The only question is whether that info can go elsewhere with a redirect, or whether it justifies its own article.
@(WT-en) Peter I could frame the same question in the reverse. Why clutter a proper travel article with information on an island no-one will likely consider visiting or getting information on. If someone is thinking of visiting, they can search for the island and get the (brief) information they need. There is little value in the article, I agree, but there is very little overhead in keeping these articles - probably less than putting the information elsewhere and redirecting to it. --(WT-en) inas 22:47, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
I really don't understand what the argument is for treating this accommodation-less island different from any other. Should we have articles for every island in the Andaman and Nicobar chains? Wake Island is a place one can visit, and has basic travel amenities that we do require for a travel article. Heard & McDonald is a reasonable exception, I would say, since they are so far from anything else and could not be covered usefully in the Australia article. Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article—subdividing the Andaman & Nicobar article into 600 blank island articles sounds less fun. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:17, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
To clarify: Wikivoyage policy specifically states that uninhabited islands should not have their own articles. Read Project:What is an article?. That policy seems to be ignored in a handful of cases, but remains none the less. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:53, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
Good spotting there - right at the bottom of the list. Although this island isn't really uninhabited - though. It's not a rock in the ocean.
Given that others seem to have a vision for the area which makes sense, and I'm not volunteering to piece together the region, I'm happy to concede the point. --(WT-en) inas 02:28, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
Yep. The uninhabited island point was a side issue, but I wanted to make that clear for potential future cases. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:36, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect - Lethally unvisitable. (WT-en) Texugo 23:13, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
I'd like to own up... I was the one who wrote the article. North Sentinel Island is a very intriguing place, and I wanted to make other travellers aware of it, for its own sake as well as for the safety of the traveller. However, I did not know that there was already a mention of it on the Andaman Islands page. I've read your objections, and agree that having its own page is unnecessary. I do, however, agree with Peter when he says, "Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article". But a redirect is necessary. --User:(WT-en) Squishysquashy Talk 13:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm okay with a redirect as long as the target article clearly mentions the island and that it's not visitable. But I do want to explicitly agree with Inas about the "can you sleep there" rule -- my reading of it is that it was meant only to allow us to (help) distinguish between an attraction and a destination, and any other use of the rule is questionable. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Regardless of anyone's reading of the article, we have been using the "can you sleep there" rule on this page since before my time to rule out articles on tiny towns, uninhabited islands, and the like (which could be seen as destinations and not just attractions). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
According to (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill the intended interpretation of this was agreed on IRC back in 2007. This discussion came up over Dorothy. Regardless, whichever way you may choose to look at it, we have definitely moved on from the simplistic interpretation that would have us delete a destination for merely lacking a hotel or campsite. --(WT-en) inas 19:06, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
(Actually he said "IIRC" not "on IRC". =) (WT-en) LtPowers 19:24, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
I try to avoid wearing my glasses - its a vanity thing. --(WT-en) inas 19:55, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Andaman and Nicobar. Although the outcome was clearly "redirect", comments about making a mention in the target article lead me to believe that this is actually a "merge & redirect", hence the action taken. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:34, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete - Like, Downtown, this is a common name for the centre of many cities, including London. It's not by far the most famous outside of London, however, and a disamb page doesn't really make sense. I can't imagine it is a common search term for non-Londoners. --(WT-en) inas 19:57, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete - The term applies equally to any one of dozens of cities. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:52, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:47, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. All of the above images are attributed to http://www.laketauponz.com, but there is nothing on that site indicating that content can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:47, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Image is attributed to http://www.freefall.net.nz, but there is nothing on that site indicating that content can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:47, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Agree. Especially as it is not even spelt correctly. As a kid I always knew it as the Lea, but then the bureaucrats intervened. Rivers are fine for Wikipedia but I don't see that they have a place in Wikivoyage. (WT-en) Shep 15:08, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
It could in theory be an outline itinerary. If no further work has been done by the end of the vfd process, then it can probably go. --(WT-en) inas 01:35, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:24, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

A former ghost town annexed by New Braunfels in 1979 and completely within its city limits. New Braunfels is not, by any stretch, big enough to warrant districtification, so this information can easily be handled there.

  • Merge and redirect - (WT-en) Texugo 00:21, 30 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect - Don't know the first thing about the place, but Texugo's take on this seems reasonable --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for New Braunfels. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:24, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

After some discussions on wiaa, I've been going through our uninhabited island articles to see if there was a good way to frame exceptions to the policy, because from an armchair traveller point of view, I quite like many of them. The reasonable suggestions seem to be based on uninhabited island that could be visited (by tourists, researchers, or military) and that are such a distance from other places that including them elsewhere makes no sense.

This article does not fit this exception. As well as being uninhabited, it can't be visited, and WP says it is more of a maritime hazard than an island, being underwater at high tide. Its not a good place to anchor your boat, or to set up a tent. As a result, it has a very encyclopaedic feel, rather than a travel guide. Perhaps we should leave WP to document this one? --(WT-en) inas 08:11, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Redirect. Since it's a real place a redirect seems to make more sense than a delete. It looks like Line Islands would be the best redirect target? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:37, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
Really? Thats a disamb page itself. Its only purpose is to direct people elsewhere. --(WT-en) inas 08:08, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
Redirect to Kiribati would be the move I think. Kingman is part of the Northern Line Islands, which are covered by our Kiribati article. It is not officially part of Kiribati but could very easily be covered there with one or two sentences. Alternatively, redirect to Oceania with a similar two sentence profile. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:27, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
Hmmm - we could add something like If you happen to be saling to Hawaii, be careful about 500km north that you don't run into it?. If we decide to redirect, I'd throw my weight behind Oceania. We already have a small section there for uninhabited and unvisitable, lets just redirect this miscellany to there. --(WT-en) inas 00:21, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Line Islands, I think slapping this together with Kiribati, while a reasonable line of thought, is a slippery slope. Line Islands is fine, even if its a disamb page, since it would tell the would be traveller roughly where the place is. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Line Islands. If anyone feels strongly that this should be redirected elsewhere go for it - I chose the Line Islands simply because there were two votes for it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:41, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:45, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:48, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

This image has likely been copied from here: http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/Somalia/North/Bari/Bosaso/photo210314.htm, to where it was uploaded already in 2005. --(WT-en) Túrelio 09:21, 31 May 2010 (EDT).
-- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:53, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:51, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Per a previous nomination we deleted the "list of US states" article, so to be consistent this one should be deleted as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:07, 30 May 2010 (EDT)
It looks like someone was enthusiastic at one stage about turning all the counties into either disamb or redirection articles. This seems an admirable goal - it would stop people creating county articles, and help people out looking for county travel info. However, this endeavor doesn't seem to have got off the ground - some quick checking reveals only a single article (out of more than 3000) has been done. It would take serious commitment from someone to do this.
I'm therefore inclined to say weak keep, and move to wikivoyage namespace. If the decision is eventually to delete, we should maintain the discussion page somewhere, as it is still relevant today - possibly at geographical hierarchy. --(WT-en) inas 00:02, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
Would probably be clever to keep this somewhere, but where? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:59, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete - Unused image with identifiable people without limited value for guide. --(WT-en) inas 00:33, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
The artsy borders that this user used makes me support deleting all of the photos uploaded by (WT-en) Richfield. Any objections? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:09, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
Most of them are pretty useless and could be put up for deletion even without the artsy borders. A couple, though, are actually useful to a travel guide and I'd hate to lose them just because they've been artistically "enhanced". (WT-en) LtPowers 08:08, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
Oh my. That's actually very funny.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Let's go ahead and get the others linked here:

Image:Sonny's Benches.jpg - Useless, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Saint_Paul_Grand_Avenue_Bowls.jpg - Useless, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Calhoun Parkway Steps.jpg - Not a bad shot, but bordered and on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Downtown Saint Paul.jpg - Kind of dark, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Saint Paul Sidewalk Grand Avenue.jpg - Not especially illustrative of anything, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Brick Porch.jpg - Part of somebody's house? Bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Front Gate.jpg - Somebody's house. Bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Wikivoyage Paths.jpg - People in image, useless, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.
Image:Seagull with Ducks.jpg - Generic, bordered, on :en instead of :shared.

The original nomination is uploaded here instead of shared as well, so all of them violate our photo policy in at least 2 ways (borders violate the "simple photography" clause). I don't see any real use for any of them personally. I suppose if anyone really wants to make a case for keeping one of them, I suppose they could take it and crop the border off and re-upload it to shared, but the only destiny I can see for these here is a big fat...

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 09:07, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete all. I agree with LtPowers that some of these may have value for travel, but most of them do not and the artsy border seems like a deal-breaker to me. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:51, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted all. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm not completely sure about this, but we have a Toprak-Kala article already, and it appears that the proper name for the second is Koi Krylgan Kala. No information about the second site is given and the Toprak-Kala article has better information than this one, so I don't see anything to merge. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:53, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:16, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

This was nominated before, but conversation that continued on the article's talk page after the slush seemed to move towards consensus on deleting it. The stated reasons are that "Izakaya" is not a sensible redirect and that the content in the Japan article already has an explanation of Izakaya, so we don't need to bother merging. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:47, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. While I think we shoudl encourage more articles on beer, this one doesn't cut the mustard. --(WT-en) inas 19:10, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Note that I left the talk page as it wasn't clear to me that the discussion was no longer relevant. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. These are the same image, uploaded twice. VFD tags were added to these two images in 2007 but they never went on a nomination page. See Project:Votes for deletion/May 2007#Image:Chcc1.jpg, which states the nomination is due to the fact that there is no license info nor any indication what the images are. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:01, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted both. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a hotel. VFD tag was originally added in 2007 but this was never placed on the nominations page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:09, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Keep. I can't see any reason why this image would need to be deleted; however, a VFD tag was added in 2007 but this was never placed on the nominations page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:09, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Image of a hotel room. VFD tag was added in 2008 but no nomination was ever made. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:17, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken from, so I'm not sure how we could use it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

I've checked and there is absolutely no content worth merging from this article (all of the listings are already in our Kobe article). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

If it was likely enough for someone to create the article in the first place, then its likely enough to be a search. Even if it only helps the person who created it, redirects are cheap. --(WT-en) inas 01:16, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Kobe. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:56, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This merge candidate should now go. Do we keep foreign character redirects on en? --(WT-en) inas 04:47, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Keeping foreign character redirects raises a few issues. They are difficult to patrol on a en site, and there are potentially 20-30 times more redirects to create than there are articles on Wikivoyage. Should google hits be a consideration (and I think not) they should be directed to the most appropirate language version, which then has a inter-wiki link to en. --(WT-en) inas 19:07, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'm a redirect booster, and do think SEO should be something we take into consideration as long as it doesn't affect website quality, but it's too much to ask of our patrollers to follow the creation of redirects in other character sets. It's awfully hard to tell, for me at least, the difference between @#$%sucker and Tamanrasset, when written in the Arabic script. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:14, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete With Wikipedia it's not difficult to find many place names in foreign languages by typing in your native language and switching the language and Wikipedia does redirect foreign language entries however, for Wikivoyage I think if a traveler's English is not at a level where they can figure out the name of their destination, the guide itself will probably not be so useful. And they can also go to their native language (if it exists) and then click the English version from that page if they need to. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:49, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Like downtown, this isn't a redirectable thing. --(WT-en) inas 04:48, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This Wikipedia copied text is encyclopedic in nature. It is is not a destination, not an itinerary, and doesn't make the grade as a travel topic. --(WT-en) inas 04:55, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's an image of a business's sign that looks more like advertising than travel content. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and the name & image size look suspiciously copyvio-ish. If the consensus is to keep this image then it would need to be de-orphaned in one of the Philadelphia articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and the name & image size look suspiciously copyvio-ish. If the consensus is to keep this image then it would need to be de-orphaned in one of the Philadelphia articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image that was tagged for VFD in 2008 but apparently never put on the nomination page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image that was tagged for VFD in 2008 but apparently never put on the nomination page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Looks likely that it was identified as a non-complying with licence conditions at the time. --(WT-en) inas 23:23, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image that was tagged for VFD in January 2010 but apparently never put on the nomination page. Looks like a copyvio map. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Thumbnail image with no license specified, and it's not a high enough quality image that I think we need to keep it around and risk violating copyright. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:45, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. A VFD tags was added to this in 2007 but it never went on a nomination page and there isn't any indication of why the VFD tag was added. That said, it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's a poor quality image of two people swimming - I don't think it's worth keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's a poor quality image that was uploaded to promote a bike tour operator, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's currently unused and site policy is that orphaned images should be deleted. If anyone feels that this should be kept please be sure to indicate what article it can be placed in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. stub travel topic. vfd once before in 2007. Argument given at that time was that it should be given the opportunity to develop. Three years later, it still states the bleedin' obvious, that some people go to Spain to learn Spanish. Really difficult to see how this article can develop, and previous suggestion that this could compare Spanish courses in Argentina to those in Spain seems wildly optimistic. --(WT-en) inas 20:12, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete Traveling to a country that speaks the language you want to learn is a no-brainer certainly not specific to Spanish, and ranking Spanish courses by country doesn't seem helpful when there is a lot of variation in the quality of courses within countries. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:07, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:19, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Very badly written article and even seems to be a copyvio. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:10, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. A no-brainer for me. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:37, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:29, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. It's empty and hasn't been edited since 2007-8. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 06:46, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think the guidelines on stub topics/itineraries that haven't received an edit in a year is applicable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:05, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:08, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This is a yellow page listing of dive operators in Thailand, something that is an explicit non-goal of Wikivoyage. Given that there is almost no useful information about the operators besides address and contact number I don't think this even merits a merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:15, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'm just cleaning up a ton of SEO spam from this user.... — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 20:42, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:08, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, tagged as a copyvio, and VFD'd in 2007 but never placed on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, tagged as a copyvio, and VFD'd in 2007 but never placed on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Tagged as a copyvio, and VFD'd in 2007 but never placed on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Tagged VFD in 2007 but never nominated. I'm not sure why this was VFD'd, but it's currently unused and thus should be deleted per policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and thus subject to deletion per policy. If anyone wants to keep it please specify what article it can be incorporated into. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused, of poor quality, and looks like just a generic sea image so I have no idea how we could use it. If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken. If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused, blurry, and of rocks and a lake with no indication of where it was taken. If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken. If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008) but it's unused and there is no indication of where it was taken. If anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008), however it's a commercial photo of the inside of a bar in Providence, something we don't usually allow unless the establishment is notable for some reason. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This survived a previous mass-nomination due to not having a license (see Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008), however it's a commercial photo of the inside of a bar in Providence, something we don't usually allow unless the establishment is notable for some reason. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This was VFD'd in 2007 for unknown reasons but never added to the nominations page. It's unused, so if anyone wants to keep it please indicate what article it could be used in. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Nominated in 2007 but apparently never placed on the nominations page. This is an unused ad for a coffee company with no travel value. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. VFD tag was added in 2009 indicating that it doesn't seem to be a real place. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Tagged VFD in 2008 but not nominated, it's an unused image of two people with no travel value, so a clear delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete, recognizable faces. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:16, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Tagged VFD in 2008 but not nominated. The info in the article seems to be based on one person's account of being robbed, so probably not worth merging. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:14, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete. I agree with Ryan. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:39, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete Was the the deleted image an actual picture of the pickpockets?? Send it over to WikiCops (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:33, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Tel Aviv or the appropriate district. This was tagged VFD in 2008 but apparently never nominated. It doesn't fit within the Tel Aviv district structure which (I assume) was why it was nominated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Tel Aviv. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Tagged VFD in March 2010 but apparently never nominated. The game reserve is a listing in Limpopo, which is sufficient. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2010&oldid=4924708"