Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2007

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/November 2007 or Project:Votes for deletion/January 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Uploaded to shared. (WT-en) WTDuck2 15:18, 12 November 2007 (EST)

  • No particular issues with deleting this because it's superseded by a Shared image, but I just noticed that the Shared image itself has license issues. Is that real, or is it an artifact of the way the Shared image was created? I'd like to resolve that question before deleting this image. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:16, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Okay, so we've got all these district articles for separate neighborhoods in Downtown San Diego. The problem is that each neighborhood really doesn't have enough stuff to stand on its own (with the possible exception of Little Italy). I think all of them should be combined into a single Downtown article, which I have already created with all the listings that are on each page. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

  • Redirect all. Since they are places, I think redirects would be the (marginally) best way to handle overly subdivided districts, being just a bit cheaper a solution than deletes. And there is the off chance that such redirects might boost page rank on search engines (although that's a moving target). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 06:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Hmmm, that's not a bad idea. Okay, well now I'm willing to go either way (delete or redirect). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 11:52, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Well, seeing as it's been two weeks, I'll redirect them now. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:59, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Same as above. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Same as above (as above). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Same as above (as above as above). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Same as above (as above as above as above). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected All. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:13, 3 December 2007 (EST)

The entire article is "ok". I am not too familiar with the guidelines here, but I'm assuming that having just two letters would make the article a candidate for deletion. --(WT-en) The Yeti 11:32, 17 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Not an article, can't think of a suitable redirect; would support speedy deletion.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:17, 4 December 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Too fine grained. Hahnenklee is a very small town in the Harz Mountains in Germany. It is not a major tourist destination at all. Currently the article promotes only a small family pension. It is practically spam.87.163.211.75 14:48, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, at least for now. "Too fine grained ... not a major tourist destination at all" is not a reason to delete an article, if the place meets the you-can-sleep-there test, and it appears that this one does. Instead, clean it up and make it useful, or redirect it to something more inclusive. Might this place be part of an Alpine skiing complex? If so, is there a sensible "umbrella" article to include it under? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)
  • I looked it up again, it is not even a town. It is a small hamlet with 1200 inhabitants that is part of Goslar, a bigger town in the Harz region. The correct name is Goslar-Hahnenklee-Bockswiese. As in most of the small hamlets in the Harz mountains it is a tourist destination in the sense that it offers places to sleep for tourists visiting the Harz. If you want to keep the info it should be moved to the Goslar page. I fact, the German version of the wikivoyage Goslar page lists the church in Hahnenklee as a Goslar tourist attraction.87.163.211.150 16:01, 26 November 2007 (EST)
    • OK, then redirect to Goslar. One of the challenges in Wikivoyage is that the terms "town," "village," "hamlet," etc., vary in meaning from place to place, making a consistent treatment of very small towns difficult. But I feel strongly that as long as someone may come here looking for info on Hahnenklee, the article name should be kept as a redirect, at the minimum. We do the same for far smaller towns than this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Goslar. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:46, 6 December 2007 (EST)

It does not meet our copyleft. This image is "Multi-licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license".

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:33, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Thought about a speedy delete for this as it is a body of water (thus not a valid article subject), but was unsure if it was within my authority. --(WT-en) OldPine 18:17, 20 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete, but you did right to put it through the process rather than speedy-deleting it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:28, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:57, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I don't know how this happened, but our coverage on San Diego is a disaster. There are far too many district articles that are almost completely irrelevant. I'm trying to restructure the coverage, so this may not be the only time you see me here with a San Diego article.

Anyway, Sorrento Valley is a suburban neighborhood located in north San Diego, and is the home of a number of corporate headquarters and "tech parks", but little else. There's nothing to do, few (if any) places to eat, and only a few motels, which could easily go into the Del Mar article, as it is practically next door (which I've already done with the one hotel listing in this article). (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:20, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Keep. I think. Could you point me towards your overall plan for San Diego? Maybe that will change my mind. The current structure was created based on a list of neighborhoods from the city's web site. I agree that it's a disaster, but I don't think that subsuming part of San Diego into different municipality (Del Mar) is the solution. I can try to add some dining locations (which I've eaten at) when I stay at that hotel in a couple of weeks. I'd rather see Sorrento Valley subsumed into a larger north San Diego neighborhood, but I don't know San Diego well enough to restructure things. --(WT-en) Jonboy 17:04, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Basically, my plan was to run down the list of neighborhoods, keep those that have sufficient places to see, eat, sleep, etc, and get rid of the rest. But for these cases where there doesn't seem to be a whole lot in each neighborhood, I am totally willing to go for more regional articles, like "Northeastern San Diego". (WT-en) PerryPlanet 20:40, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
  • This has been up for VFD for a long time, and it's time to get it resolved. A redirect to somewhere in the new SD hierarchy seems right to me, but I'd prefer it be done by someone who knows the city better than I do. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:51, 6 December 2007 (EST)
If we create a "Northeastern San Diego" article, we can redirect Sorrento Valley into that. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:20, 6 December 2007 (EST)
  • Keep/redirect. I'm all for large districts to encompass many smaller neighborhoods of relatively low travel importance. So a merge & redirect to Northeastern San Diego makes sense to me, when its created. Until the hierarchy is sorted out and such an article is created, I think it's fair to just link this article from the talk page and keep for now. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: kept, but "without prejudice"; this should be revisited if/when the San Diego district structure matures. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:51, 11 December 2007 (EST)

To old to be of any use to a traveler --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:27, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Not an article. Avoided speedy delete since listing it here gives new users the opportunity to see why things get deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:19, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Per Project:What is an article? ~ 202.62.100.49 10:50, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:45, 12 December 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Page contains one line "veri good mer3000000000". Not an article. (WT-en) Sevenlee 19:00, 4 December 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy redirect to Baku Region, which is more or less "East Azerbaijan." I've done this, but am leaving this up for a day or two in case anyone else would like to comment. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:20, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: redirected. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Improper license. Reads:My photographs are protected under International Copyright law and may not be posted in another webpage on the internet or used for commercial use without my express written permission. All rights reserved universewide. Mahalo! (WT-en) 2old 09:35, 1 December 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. (WT-en) 2old 09:35, 1 December 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. I've advised the poster (owner?) of the license problem, but haven't seen a response. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:35, 1 December 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. She'd have to remove her signature from the image anyway. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:09, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Business logo, not useful to the traveler --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 10:27, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Cellphone, can't think of a valid use on wikivoyage --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:23, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:54, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Not an article, can't sleep there. This appears to be the name of a castle (thus, an attraction) rather than a city. Perhaps can be moved to a nearby town? --(WT-en) OldPine 15:05, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Benesov. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Coat of arms --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:41, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

As above, a body of water, thus, not an article. Has several links to it. -- (WT-en) OldPine 19:09, 20 November 2007 (EST)

  • Keep. It dawned on me, immediately after deleting the Pagasetic Gulf article, that while this isn't viable as a destination article, it makes good sense as a region in Greece, possibly under the name "Aegean Sea (region)". Incidentally, I've made a rare entry in Project:Votes for undeletion to see if Pagasetic Gulf should be brought back on the same grounds; suggest discussing there as well. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 11 December 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. I find (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill's argument persuasive. At the least, on purely travel grounds (waters!), it would be an itinerary of sorts. --(WT-en) Wandering 13:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)
  • Comment. Greece currently has two regions for the Aegean; if we keep this as a region (I'd keep the name as just "Aegean Sea", those will have to be dealt with. Alternatively, we could simply redirect this to Greece, even though there are bits of Turkey in the Aegean, almost off the rocks in that sea are Greece-administered. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)
    • Fair enough. The links to this article are all in Greece, and I'm pretty sure that whoever started the article did so thinking of it as a Greek something-or-other, not something shared with Turkey. (Insert political commentary here; I'm not touching it.) So maybe even better than keeping the article as it stands is to turn it into a disambiguation page for the existing region articles with "Aegean" in their names. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)
  • Keep as a disambiguation. In general, though, I'm not sure we should keep merely plausible region articles. If they don't fit with the established hierarchy, and redirects/disambigs don't make sense, then we should probably get rid of them. For example, Northern Russia would not have been salvageable in the Russian hierarchy. I also don't support the notion of keeping plausible itineraries—unless someone really shows an interest in developing them, they just sit around as stubs that give people the wrong idea about what gets an article on Wikivoyage. Lastly, the links to the Agean Sea page should be removed, as they give the impression that we encourage links to "body of water" articles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:57, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept as a disambiguation page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:57, 22 December 2007 (EST)

No model release, unfortunately; it's a pity to delete it, as it gives a real sense of what a market in Fez is like, but it's gotta go. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:36, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:09, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Per Project:What is an article?. Unlike Disneyland and some other parks, Six Flags Parks are not full resorts, offering no on-site accommodation.

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 01:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  • Is it well enough known that we should have a redirect from this title, or from Magic Mountain, to Valencia? We do this for things like Taj Mahal for people who might know the attraction name but not know where it is. (WT-en) Pashley 06:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  • It's fairly well-known in the Cali-Nevada-Arizona area I suppose, but certainly not on world-fame par with Disneyland. A redirect wouldn't bother me. My point is that Six Flags has literally dozens of amusement parks all over North America and we don't have (or need) articles for any of the others, not even the flagship Texas location. Plus the article has a lot of pretty useless information. What use to the traveller is it to have a list of every t-shirt and stuffed animal shop and every vendor in the amusement park? (WT-en) Texugo 22:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. There are too many Six Flags parks across the US to tie this redirect to one area. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:12, 30 November 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect to Valencia (California). Each "Six Flags _______" can be redirected to its own locale. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:52, 11 December 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect to Valencia (California) ~ 203.144.143.4 17:37, 18 December 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. A redirect from Magic Mountain, the common English name, would be OK, though perhaps unnecessary. However, we do not need one from the longer formal name. (WT-en) Pashley 18:58, 18 December 2007 (EST)
  • Looks like a redirect to me, unless someone tips the consensus in the next few minutes... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:59, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Valencia (California). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:37, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Present content indicates that it's designed to list rating standards for accommodation in every country. This content belongs on individual country or region pages, as Talk:Rating systems points out. (WT-en) Hypatia 07:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Could it be merged into Hotels? That seems a better place for any overview material. (WT-en) Pashley 04:07, 19 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. This does seem a borderline case, which could be merged into individual country/continent pages, but I think the end result might be a bit messy. I would recommend, however, that the Africa section be dumped (as it does not substantially differ from international norms) and the travel topic be narrowed down to cover only its principal content—hotel rating systems in Europe. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: kept. (WT-en) Pashley 06:49, 24 December 2007 (EST)


Single caste, not an article. Can anyone suggest a merge or redirect rather than deletion? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)

  • Quoth Wikipedia: "The Curton castle is located in the area called "Entre-Deux-Mers" in Gironde (France), 30 kilometers east from Bordeaux. it is located in the north of village of Daignac at the border of the village of Tizac-de-Curton, whose name comes from the first Lords of Curton." That article also says that a self-catering apartment is available for rental there, so it does pass the you-can-sleep-there test, after a fashion. Accordingly, keep until somebody comes up with the appropriate redirect, although merge/redirect is probably the correct long-term solution. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:33, 3 December 2007 (EST)
    • Just noticed that practically the entire text is lifted from WP, so it's time to put this one away. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:28, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:32, 29 December 2007 (EST)

  • A feature, not a place --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 10:04, 3 December 2007 (EST)
  • Strong Keep Since the problem seems to be with the title, it's been changed to the Haor basin, which is an 2.5 million hector area spanning over 7 districts in Bangladesh. The area is increasingly becoming popular as a tourist attraction and described by the Lonely Planets Travel Bangladesh Guide as one of the most spectacular sites in Bangladesh. The term Haor area or Bhati elaka is more often used to refer to the area than the Haor basin, but it would be more accurate at that. A mistaken title is not a reason to delete. It rather may be a reason for a move. (WT-en) Aditya Kabir 09:02, 4 December 2007 (EST)
The name is not the reason I listed it for deletion; the problem is that it seems to be a large area and I can not see how this will fit into the Bangladesh hierarchy. A park template was used for the article, but other sources (including your excellent work on wikipedia) indicate that the whole area is not a single park. If the Haor can be a valid region within the Bangladesh hierarchy then by all means we should keep it, but then the template should be changed and the other Bangladesh articles should reflect it. As it stand now I would definitely recommend deletion or redirect or at a minimum a redirect to Sylhet Division --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:27, 4 December 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, but: To me this looks more like a travel topic or Itinerary article than a destination article. There seem to be resemblances (thematic more than geological) between this and Cenotes of the Yucatán, which we've decided is a valid Itinerary article. If this one can be recast in that form, let it be. If not, then merge and redirect to one of the jumping-off places, but I'd like to see an attempt at an Itinerary article first. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:35, 4 December 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, but: either make it an itinerary or rework the hierarchy so it becomes a region under Bangladesh. (WT-en) Pashley 20:30, 4 December 2007 (EST)
    • An itinerary with a link to Sylhet Division? I don't see anything wrong with that. Style and organization issues can be sorted out, I hope, as long as you wonderful editors are there to help out. But, the destination is a exceptionally valid one. In fact, my wanderings in and around Bangladesh tells me that the Haor basin is one very much a "must see" in Bangladesh. Development of the article to a respectable status may take a little more time. (WT-en) Aditya Kabir 00:59, 7 December 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect to Sylhet Division and mention what haors are there. They're spread over a large area, and aren't really a necessary subdivision of Sylhet, which IMO doesn't need further subdividing at all. I think it only makes sense as an itinerary if you're guiding people along to a few notable ones... I don't see why a paragraph on the Sylhet Division page describing what haors are wouldn't suffice... and if it really needs further description, then maybe break it off into a travel topic – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:34, 8 December 2007 (EST)
  • Keep as it is - During my recent visit to Bangladesh, the Haor region was as much a destination as the Himalayas or Scottish Highlands were on other occasions, and there was so little tourist information about it either on the web or in print. The presence or absence of separate location-specific pages such as Loch Ness, Fort William or Glencoe does not make the page on Scottish Highlands superfluous. In future, I would be happy to see people add location specific pages on say Tanguar haor or Shanir haor. Please don't delete the page. It is a beautiful watery kingdom and I say that after visiting such places as Venice and Lake District. I have already added some photographs and shall try to develop the page properly. - (WT-en) P.K.Niyogi 08:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)
  • Keeping as it is does not work. We have a geographical hierarchy; destination articles need to fit into that and this one currently does not. Making it a subdivision under Sylhet Division would solve that, but I'm not sure it is the best solution. I don't think it is a travel topic subject either. Deleting it would be silly; there's some good info for travellers that we of course want to keep. Moving that info into Sylhet Division probably does not work either; there's too much here to fit well. Make it an itinerary with links from Bangladesh and Sylhet Division. (WT-en) Pashley 22:59, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, but some changes are needed to make it a proper Itinerary article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:36, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Re-district Columbus. Info merged to Columbus/Downtown Short North is about three blocks long. (WT-en) 2old

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Info to be merged into other areas as re-district takes place. Nice, popular, but very small neighborhood. May want to redirect also. (WT-en) 2old 14:28, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I don't believe this to be an appropriate article heading even for a redirect.

  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 05:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)
  • Delete — (WT-en) NJR_ZATalk 16:48 Thursday, November 14, 2024 SAST
  • Delete unless there's a volunteer to rebuild it as an itinerary. It could become that with some reviews and comment on the various places, but it would need a fair bit of work to justify having the article. (WT-en) Pashley 19:12, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/December_2007&oldid=4924775"