Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2009

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

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

  • Redirect (but where?). The current article is spam and I was going to speedy delete it per Project:Bodies of water, but there are five articles that link to it, so I suspect a redirect would be more useful since some editors seem to think it is a valid article. I'm stuck on where to redirect to, however - Europe? Scandinavia? British Isles? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:09, 31 January 2009 (EST)
    • My personal opinion is that bodies of water should be disambiguation pages listing major destinations surrounding them. In some cases, such as Great Lakes, we can almost treat it like a region. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)
    • The current disambiguation page seems like a good compromise. I wouldn't recommend that all bodies of water get disambiguation pages, but the fact that this one is frequently wiki-linked seems to indicate that some sort of page is called for. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 08:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Strong Delete. Keeping bodies of water is a slippery slope. There is no consensus on how to redirect them. No clear way to disambiguate them. Do we redirect to places that offer cruises, or to islands in them, We should only consider keeping this after a serious rework of our bodies of water policy, so we know where we are going and what we want these articles for. Great Lakes is not an exception to the existing rule, as it is a name of the region surrouding the bodies of water already. Redirecting the North Sea to the a high level or region doesn't help the traveler. --(WT-en) Inas 18:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. What (WT-en) Inas said. Current policy doesn't allow anything else. (WT-en) Texugo 21:10, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Project:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting: "The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete. Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected, but articles about restaurants, bars, hotels, and other such commercial establishments should be deleted rather than redirected, in order to curb touting.". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
I think the point here is "where would you even redirect it?" The North Sea borders four top-level European regions. Is it really even useful to redirect this to Europe as whole? (WT-en) Texugo 21:52, 1 February 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to Europe#Regions. Perhaps that will one day help some confused person. And perhaps it might dissuade that confused person from creating the article again. It's a geographical location, so redirecting should be fine. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:14, 2 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep as a disambiguation page. It should state that our policy is to not write articles about bodies of water but about the land instead and they could be looking for any of the countries in Europe#Regions that border onto the North Sea. This should discourage people writing about the North Sea itself. If people do then the page could be protected. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:57, 2 February 2009 (EST)
OK - I have added a disamiguation style page - rough first cut just see how it might fly - I think it has potential, even if it is just lots of links. It could tell someone if you can get into a country via a North Sea port, for example. This is something you would not know unless you knew which article to read. The North Sea article now tells you what are the likely candidates for information. Perhaps this is a standard to adopt for all major bodies of water (Oceans and Seas) that do not currently exist. - (WT-en) Huttite 09:13, 2 February 2009 (EST)
IMO. It is of no value to the traveller. It hinders them. They can go to each of those countries, and find nothing about the North Sea. They would be much better off with the normal wiki search function, which would at least find articles that reference the north sea, rather than this disambig which points them multiple high level articles which don't. --(WT-en) Inas 17:53, 2 February 2009 (EST)
I think this is a good solution, and would work for other oceans for which a redirect simply would not work. I would, however, recommend disambiguating by continental section, rather than country (e.g., Scandinavia, Beneluxe, British & Irish Isles, etc.), because someone searching for a region as broad as the North Sea is looking for something broader than an individual country. Moreover, if we were to use this as a precedent for other oceans, it would be silly to have a Pacific Ocean disambiguation for every nation and territory that touches it. To Ian's point about the search function—travelers can still use the search function, rather than the "go" function if they choose to, so I think that shouldn't be too much of a concern. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:09, 2 February 2009 (EST)
My point was if a disambig adds more value than the standard search, then lets do it. Lets point people at what they are looking for. But if the disambig detracts value from the search, and points them away from any reference to what they are looking for, we have to wonder why we are doing it. We are just wasting the travelers time. Lets face it, a person doing a search for the north sea, isn't going to be very far advanced once redirected to Europe#Regions or similar are they? They still have to search for what they are looking for. Unless all they were looking for was a geography lesson, and that isn't really what we are here for. --(WT-en) Inas 18:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)
  • I suggest we put this on hold and hold a discussion about creating new policy at Project:Bodies of water. If we were to start allowing disambiguation pages for bodies of water, I would really want to work out a system first-- criteria for when to disambiguate a body of water (versus when to redirect it, etc), criteria for what types of articles should be pointed to, how to deal with each type: rivers, bays, etc. I also think that if we were to start doing this, it would have some potential implications for other region-spanning features such as mountain ranges, deserts, and forests. That said, maybe even Project:Bodies of water is not an adequate place for this discussion, but the point is: This is a precedent-setting matter, and the Votes for deletion page is not really the place to pave new policies. (WT-en) Texugo 19:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)
  • Can we close this now that we have a sort of consensus? —(WT-en) Ravikiran 23:14, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
I'd say so. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:16, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
As soon as someone who actually understands that new consensus fixes it up? It would be nice to close this month. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:12, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
I have no idea if the new consensus is a firm one, but I do believe that the page is compliance with the policies on bodies of water and disambiguation pages as it is written now. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 04:35, 31 July 2009 (EDT)


  • I cannot decide whether to Delete or Disambiguate this body of water. I have proposed it here because the policy says we don't normally create such articles (but sometimes we do!) So I want to get a feel for where the tide of opinion is running on this article and perhaps provoke discussion about these sorts of articles generally. Perhaps the policy is too indecisive. - (WT-en) Huttite 11:14, 14 February 2009 (EST)
  • Weak don't redirect I still maintain that the purpose of a disambiguation or redirection is to point somebody in the direction of where they might find the information they are looking for. If we can define what the user is looking for, and we have that information located somewhere else, then a redirect or a disambiguation makes perfect sense, and we should just do it as a matter of course. When either of these factors is missing - when it isn't at all clear what the user is looking for, or that information isn't located in a few fixed places in the guide, we are not helping anyone with a redirect or disambiguation. Redirecting to a higher level region isn't useful if it makes no mention of the search term, as the user is still left with nowhere to go. We are better off just letting it fall back to the default search, where are least the user will be presented with a listing of all articles that match their search, in relevance order. In this case the text of this article it seems to more resemble a travel topic for navigating the waterway. Again, we could end up with a article for how to navigate most navigable waterways, and that may be a valuable thing, but at the moment that fits more within our travel topic hierarchy then it does within our destination hierarchy. --(WT-en) Inas 18:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Hold We apparently really need to root out a policy on this, since alot of us are starting to second guess the current one. (see discussion for North Sea above). --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)


There is no indication that the uploader took this photo, and the site it came from does not indicate that it is CC-SA licensed. Additionally, images should be uploaded to shared, not English Wikivoyage, as indicated by the giant red box on the upload page.

  • DeleteKeep. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:35, 25 February 2009 (EST) UPDATE: the situation was resolved, so looks like the image is good to keep. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep I am Mila Zinkova and I took this photo, but honestly I do not really care what you do with this--(WT-en) Mila 11:37, 25 February 2009 (EST)
    • Hi, Mila. You've uploaded some really nice pictures! Since you have previously published these photos on the web, it can be hard to tell sometimes whether something was just swiped without permission or not. =) It might help if you were to put a notice on your web page where the photos are found that says "these images are licensed CC-by-sa 3.0" with a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -- or even just a note that says "I am User:Ushlavtuman on Wikivoyage". Either one of those would prevent similar discussions in the future. =) Thanks for your contributions. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:52, 25 February 2009 (EST)
    Thank you.--(WT-en) Mila 10:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. (WT-en) Mila is engaged in the discussion, and any further issues can be resolved by directly. --(WT-en) Inas 18:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Move to shared - (WT-en) Texugo 00:16, 27 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep/Moved to shared I'm not doing it, but if someone else wants too... :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. It can be moved to shared later, along with all of Mila's other uploads. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:00, 5 August 2009 (EDT)


Delete this page was started by an ananymous user in spanish. Then all content was remowed. (WT-en) ViMy 17:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)

  • Keep; it is a real place, or rather several according to Wikipedia . Probably needs to be a disambig page here too. (WT-en) Pashley 20:00, 28 February 2009 (EST)
  • Yes I know. There is one in Puerto Rico, and two in South America. But the question are, will we get articles for this places? I searched spanish Wikivoyage, and found no articles. But of course a Disambig-page is at least a start... (WT-en) ViMy 14:00, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep; Even a disambiguation page is more useful than the current article. The fact that someone started it suggests we might get articles, sometime in the future. Even if we don't, a gap has at least been identified. - (WT-en) Huttite 07:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)


Copyvio from , no content otherwise. Redirection to Algarve is another option. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 20:25, 6 March 2009 (EST)

  • Keep - Copyright Violation is not sufficient reason to delete a page. Tag it as a copyright violation and/or redirect to the page where the attraction is best listed if it cannot become an article. (WT-en) Huttite 09:29, 7 March 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. We can't keep copyright-violating text in the history of an article. Better to delete it outright, and if a redirect is desired, one can be created afterward. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:49, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Policy discussion moved to Project:Deletion policy#Copyvios in article history
  • Wipe and redirect to Algarve, unless someone wants to argue it deserve an article of its own. There are plenty of instances where copyvio text has been inserted into an existing article along with our original content, and it's been dealt with by deleting the copyvio text. The history is there to show we fulfilled our obligations. Seriously, think through the consequences here. As a vandal, I could nuke Paris by dropping copyvio text into the second paragraph. Then Wikivoyage would have to delete the entire history of the article to get rid of that copyvio. After it was recreated, the entire valid revision history (and contributors) would be lost. Nose, spite, face, etc. On the other hand, we would need the contributor to explicitly say he or she had rights to re-license that text. We absolutely should not assume they did. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 13:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Policy discussion moved to Project:Deletion policy#Copyvios in article history
  • Keep, either as an article or redirect if needed. Copyright text and images are removed, we've never wiped history before for that. I also removed a line that was confusing in the deletion policy – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 16:09, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete! The title is wrong, should be Rio Formosa. All of the text is a copyvio. Nuke it. (WT-en) Pashley 09:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
    • Spelling mistakes should be redirected not deleted. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:02, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


Tagged as an itinerary but written (scantily) like a Wikipedia article about only the Danish portion of the road. As we don't write articles about highways except for special cases like the Dalton Highway and Route 66, I'm going to have to vote to

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 07:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, this article could be part of the Routes Expedition. But it has to be rewritten, and expanded to cover it's entire length. As it is now it is more or less a WP article. (WT-en) ViMy 08:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
The articles-about-random-highways aspect of that expedition has not been ratified by any kind of consensus and should not be pursued until the community deems it necessary. Articles about highways are, by current policy, limited to special cases only. (WT-en) Texugo 09:03, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Is this a special case, then? Finland to Italy sounds like an interesting trip. Do people actually set out to make that journey? If so, then an article on the whole route would be a valid itinerary. (WT-en) Pashley 11:24, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete All the time, but they don't necessarily follow that route. Outside Scandinavia and Benelux where they are well integrated in the national system, European routes are quite arbitrary, and poorly signposted. The situation is improving though, but not to a point where it merits articles outside the two regions above. E39 is a much better example of an itinerary that could potentially be useful. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:49, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Then it would be OK make an article about E6, witch runs Trelleborg-Kirkenes. At least in Norway E6 is rather "famous". Not saying that I will make such an article... (WT-en) ViMy 10:43, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep I agree with ViMy.
  • Delete per Project:What is an article?. This article can always be recreated later as a travel itinerary, but in its current form it is not a Wikivoyage article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:22, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Delete. Recreation as an itinerary is allowable but seems unlikely at this point. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:28, 5 August 2009 (EDT)


This seems to be no real place. (WT-en) ViMy 08:27, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

  • Seems like it is a destination. There are some grottos in Lebanon called Jeita. (WT-en) ViMy 19:12, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
An attraction, not an article. What is the nearest city? (WT-en) Texugo 19:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
We don't have a lot of Lebanese cities, but it's 15 kilometres outside Beirut, so I guess that can count as suburbs. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:07, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep - It could be a park article, and I think that 15km makes it a sufficiently remote attraction that it warrants its own article. Otherwise a disproportionately large amount of text might be devoted to it somewhere else. Better it is contained in the current article in that case. It is not doing any harm where it is. Anyway, policy is to merge and redirect, not delete, this sort of attraction. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
  • According to WP, the entrance to this grottos is in the town of Jeita. And the grottos is a major atraction. A city article? (WT-en) ViMy 09:33, 10 May 2009 (EDT)


Jeita is very impratant for tourisim in lebanon, but the article written about it is very week, it shouldn't be deleted but rewritten. —The preceding comment was added by 77.42.189.189 (talk • contribs) .


Yeah, Wikipedia says Jeita is a town name. The content currently here could easily be cleaned up and become an attraction listing in an article on the town. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:56, 2 August 2009 (EDT)


I don't know anything about the location, but it is listed as a single monastery, which I don't believe Wikivoyage covers. There is no city page for the city that it is listed as being in/near. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:17, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Um. We just need to find somewhere to put the content. --(WT-en) Inas 02:18, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Keep. Huh? Been There. Written it :) It is a nice place and definitely a great attraction. Great nature, architecture, history, beer :) I do not see why it should be deleted. Of course, add content - make it a part of a larger article about the surrounding park or may be some close city. I have just described what I have seen and it is definitely worth to be in the guide. Send some explorers there! :) (WT-en) Kyknos 09:02, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Hi, Kyknos. I think this monastery is probably better suited as an attraction listing within a destination article, rather than having an article of its own. Project:What is an article? explains our guidelines on this subject. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:57, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
I completely agree, but within what destination? I do not know the area. There is a big park around which seems interesting on the maps and a bunch of small cities I do not know anything about. So I think it should stay as it is until someone can add more content (and rename article as needed). (WT-en) Kyknos 10:04, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Do you have a pamphlet or something from this monastery that gives an address? That might be the easiest way to figure out where to place it. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 10:23, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
No, but according do the German Wikipedia (if I understand it correctly), Weltenburg is a district of nearby town Kelheim - but we have no content for it now. May be someone with better German should look at it. (WT-en) Kyknos 18:26, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Move to Weltenburg, which is the name of the nearest settlement. There is a clear consensus we should keep this information, and that seems the best location. It will need to be converted from an article about the monastery to one about the settlement. (The settlement is in Kelheim, for which we don't have an article yet.) (WT-en) LtPowers 21:28, 5 August 2009 (EDT)


A type of Japanese pub, should be merged into Japan. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Merge & redirect. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:33, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Should it really be redirected after the merge? I don't think a redirect is really necessary for something like this. It's not a destination or a site. If someone is searching for "Izakaya" and doesn't know it's Japanese, I'd say they need a dictionary not a travel guide. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 10:56, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
    • The redirect is for attribution purposes. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:58, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Really? It just seems like creating a redirect page for everything would lead to an overabundance of unhelpful redirects. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:09, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
There's no such thing as an overabundance of redirects—they do no harm. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:05, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Unless they lead someplace that winds up confusing for the user. =) (WT-en) LtPowers 08:38, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unless we want to create redirect pages for every word of the native language of each destination, this doesn't make much sense as a precedent. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:16, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Merge to Japan. I've tagged the article accordingly. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:28, 5 August 2009 (EDT)


Shouldn't it be redirected then? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:52, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
Yes, it should be redirected. (WT-en) Pashley 01:39, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, why is it "Cochin" on Wikivoyage when the city is more widely known as Kochi? Even on the article itself, it is referred to as Kochi everywhere except as its page name. It seems like Cochin should redirect to Kochi. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:02, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Actually, the up-to-date name is Kochi . Anyone against a reverse redirect? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:47, 27 June 2009 (EDT)


This is the name of a temple in Shinonsen, Hyogo. It is already mentioned in the Meditation in Japan page. No travel page links to it. Unless someone would rather redirect it (after creating a page for the city), there seems to be no reason to keep this. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 05:41, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's a destination or part of one, so it should either be turned into a full-fledged article or merged into the one it belongs to. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:48, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Move to Shinonsen, which now needs to be converted from an article about the temple to one about the destination. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:28, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete, because: it's a copyvio from and trivially-Google-searchable others, it's all promo copy with little or no salvageable travel information; it's a title that's simultaneously long, covers what should be multiple separate articles, and misspelled (Mar;ia), giving it no value as a redirect. No one of these would be fatal, but when you add them all up, I think it's time to delete and start over. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 13:32, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. As per reasons given above. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:03, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 02:33, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I don't have high hopes for this article developing, and am not sure what the intent was to begin with. Two weeks before a vfd runs out should be plenty of time to see whether someone is working on a real article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:02, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Nothing going on with this one. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:16, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 02:33, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedily deleted at uploader's request. In future, could you please upload images to shared instead of here, so they can be used on all languages? - (WT-en) Dguillaime 03:43, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not a destination. No merge necessary because the content was also added to the Montreal article. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:53, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete - In this form not ready for Wikivoyage. -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 04:44, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
Keep - It's a genuine destination in Kerala. Needs some work though... (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:02, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
I've added a template and some basic info gleaned from Wikipedia and Indian Railways. Seems to be a pretty important tourist destination with an annual literary festival. Kerala is on my mental wishlist for future travel so give it a year or two and I might be able to write a proper article about this place! (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:29, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
OK Keep - Is now a start of an article - --(WT-en) Rein N. 06:02, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:45, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

AFAIK, this and all other LanguageXX.php files are a holdover from the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and MediaWiki didn't have the ability to edit itself via MediaWiki:Allmessages. This should be nuked, or possibly redirected to the appropriate Expedition, so people don't waste their time. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:48, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: renamed and templatized. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:43, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Was about to speedy this one, but than had second thoughts, so vfd it is - text has been copied to the authors user page. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 08:45, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Delete and delete the user page too — copyvio from several tour agency sites, presumably all owned by the same owner/SEO slut? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:08, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
Regardless of Copyvio's - Mongolia's ger camps in general is a tricky case - with much of the countryside by and large being nomad land, there often really is no nearby city to fit them into. Should we refer them to the Aimags or what do we do? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:32, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
I'd agree, delete for a number of reasons, but Stefan's point is well taken: we need to do better with destinations/topics like this. It's time to revisit the "rural destinations" issue. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:51, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:32, 21 August 2009 (EDT)


Munnar-kodaikanal and Munnar- Kodaikanal route

edit

There are 3 pages with almost the same information. Keep Munnar-Kodaikanal Delete Munnar-kodaikanal Delete Munnar-Kodaikanal route

The first one has all the links to it and the most recent change. The second and third pages are orphans. Apart from the recent addition to the first page the information on all three pages appears to be identical. Suggest deleting the second and third.(WT-en) Chris1515 18:00, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete, it's spam. Thx, (WT-en) jan 05:07, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedied --(WT-en) inas 07:45, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Not sure this is even worth a redirect.

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 09:48, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I get 82 hits for it on Google, and I'm anyway not sure what it is. Might be a blogger trying to boost his SEO? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedied. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:42, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2009&oldid=4924674"