Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2011

← November 2011

Votes for deletion archives for December 2011

(current) January 2012 →

Tham Nong Pafa Cave

It is obviously an attraction and not an article. It is not even an especially important attraction and should be deleted according to policy. I guess a merge and re-direct to Tha Khaek would be OK though.--(WT-en) burmesedays 10:23, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Merge and redirect to Tha Khaek. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Merge notice added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Image:Cleethorpes seafront.jpg

Delete. See Cleethorpes for the current usage of this image - it's a pretty image, but at 7199x367 the aspect ratio makes it nearly impossible to use in a web-based travel guide. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Modify and Keep. Unless we have a better image, this one is an excellent perspective on Cleethorpes, showing the mudflat, the tide out, and the tacky English seafront attractions along the waterfront. In fact the image says everything about the town, such that the rest of the article text should in fact be deleted, and just replaced with this image. --(WT-en) inas 20:44, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Delete - I'm not a fan of using panoramas in the first place, and this one is beyond extreme, such that even if we trimmed off 3/4 of it, it would still be unwieldy at a comfortable viewing size, and it would lose most of the advantages Inas mentions. Plus, at a comfortable viewing size, it's pretty grainy picture quality. I'd say it's better to dump this and find 2 or 3 reasonably framed shots from Flickr or something. (WT-en) texugo 22:40, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Keep, at least until we have a better image to replace it with. (WT-en) Pashley 02:13, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

No comment on how to make it useable? At a size where it fits on the article page, it's microscopic, not even viewable-- you can't tell what anything is.(WT-en) texugo 07:53, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

On the article page it is unviewable, but one click, and it is a really descriptive image. Took me a couple of seconds to have a look at it, and most people using WT can click on a image and have a monitor that can view it. It needs replacing, and the article needs development. Once that is done the image can be orphaned and removed easily enough. --(WT-en) inas 18:17, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

That completely ignores the goal of having a printable guide. Everyone so far has admitted it needs to be replaced, but if we don't do something right here and now, if we let this just go to "Keep" despite its poor fit with our goals, then it's back to being out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and it could actually be years before anyone gets around to replacing it. On top of that, this image is uploaded here on en:, and without any source.(WT-en) texugo 21:49, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

No it doesn't. It reaffirms that having a printable guide is a goal. I just think that this image has potential to be chopped up and used in the guide in preference to having nothing. So, I think it would be a bad thing to remove it before we have something else, because for all we know this may be the best we have. There may well be better images out there, and when we find them we move another step towards our goal. I've been to Cleethorpes twice, and I really, really don't want to go back there to take a picture of it. --(WT-en) inas 18:23, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I'd honestly like to see us set an upper limit on aspect ration. Nobody should have to click through to the image page to view anything.(WT-en) texugo 22:22, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Keep. Its initial aspect ratio made it unusable, but I have cropped it to make it viewable in the article. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 11:25, 14 November 2011 (EST)
- Any further comment? The image is still somewhat unwieldy, but with Peter's change it's no longer completely unusable so I'd be OK with keeping it until someone adds more appropriate images to the article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:56, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Blue Lagoon

Delete. This is a very nice article about a single geothermal bath. Although it's extremely popular and they do offer some limited accommodation, by no means can this be considered a resort or a destination in its own right. The information belongs either in the article for nearby town Grindavík or simply as an activity in the Southwest Iceland region. --(WT-en) sterio 06:28, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Create Grindavik and merge there. Blue Lagoon is a loose term and very widespread. There are two Blue Lagoons in Bali for example, and I am sure heaps elsewhere. Therefore I propose that Blue Lagoon is not redirected to Grindavik.--(WT-en) burmesedays 06:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

This seems like a borderline case - the Blue Lagoon is one of the most popular destinations/attractions in Iceland, so it seems important to have decent information about it in Wikivoyage, but it also isn't something that would typically get its own article. The information needs to be somewhere, but I'm not sure that putting it in Southwest Iceland makes sense and Grindavík may be too far away to be an obvious solution. If there isn't a place to put the information that makes it easy for travelers to find then I'd say keep, although if it can be included in another article in a way that makes sense then either a redirect or a disambiguation page would be fine. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

The more I think about it, the more I agree it should not be in Grindavík. Not because of the distance (it's just a few km outside the town) but because tourists would generally approach Grindavík for very different reasons than the Blue Lagoon. But it fits perfectly in the "Do" section of Southwest Iceland: It is an activity in this region, and usually done either during visits to other sites in the region (Reykjavík and the international airport), or as an extention of the Golden Circle in South Iceland. It should be mentioned in the Iceland, South Iceland and Reykjavík articles, but the listing belongs in the Southwest. And it should not be a separate page because all that needs to be said is what it is, where it is, how to get there, and how much it costs as well as a few lines on how good/bad people think it is. That's what the page does now, only in a somewhat elongated form. I can understand that people feel this attraction needs more info than just any other swimming pool, though. Maybe a special box on the Southwest Iceland page would be a good idea? --(WT-en) sterio 11:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Keep. It cannot be solely in Southwest Iceland as that is a region article. Region articles give an overview of the region, but do not include any listings. The problem, then, is how we deal with small villages and outlying sights like the Blue Lagoon. This has been a point of contention on Wikivoyage for a while, and I don't think we have found a compelling solution for this yet. However, the Blue Lagoon is a major natural attraction with 400,000 visitors annually [1], so I think it could be a separate park article, just like Angkor Archaeological Park and Borobudur. I agree it's a borderline case, but I wouldn't know how else to deal with it. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:31, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Keep (WT-en) Pashley 20:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

First, is there a WT policy that says an attraction cannot be listed in a Region article only? Second, I think it is very notable that our only regular Icelandic contributor does not think this is an article.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- It's definitely questionable whether the Blue Lagoon merits its own article based on Wikivoyage's standard criteria, and were it less popular there probably wouldn't need to be further discussion. However, I would hazard a guess that the Blue Lagoon is the country's second most visited spot (behind Reykjavik) so it's important that Wikivoyage cover it and definitely worth considering whether it merits an exception under existing policy. Most people going to the Blue Lagoon will do so as a day trip or half-day trip and will need info on how to get there, what to expect, whether food is available, etc. If that can be adequately covered as a listing in a region article then that might be the best option, but it seems like it may just make more sense to keep the info in its own article rather than trying to wedge it into something that looks more like a standard Wikivoyage attraction. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I have to admit, I'm slightly perplexed by this discussion. The Blue Lagoon doesn't fit any of the loose criteria there is for exceptions for article status: It's not remote, it's not large or complex. It's not a park of any kind, or an independent destination in its own right. For the visitor it functions much like any other pool: You get there (driving yourself or by bus), pay, shower, swim, shower again, maybe eat in the café, and leave. In addition, there's a restaurant and a gift shop. And that's about it unless have psoriasis, in which case your doctor can recommend you go there for treatment. The only thing that makes this place possibly warrant a separate article is that it doesn't fit in the Reykjavík article (it's not in Reykjavík) or the Grindavík article (very few who visit the Blue Lagoon actually enter the town). The fact that many people go there isn't, in my view, reason enough for a separate article. In fact, apart from the introduction, there is very little content in the current article other than what I just mentioned. Some of what's there is even slightly silly and shouldn't be there, in my opinion (taking a taxi and making it wait outside is just stupid, and this article lists the rules that apply to every single swimming pool in Iceland).

However, this rule globe-trotter mentions about no listings in region articles is highly problematic in the case of Iceland. Most people come their not for the urban areas, but for the stuff in between them. People come to experience nature, towns are often only where they go to eat and sleep. The sights and activities do in many cases belong better in region articles than city or town articles. If this is a rule, I would see much more use in getting an exception from it rather than the rule on what is an article. --(WT-en) sterio 05:24, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

That means the cities in Iceland should cover a broader area than just the city itself. For example, Kanchanaburi is a city that covers a huge surrounding area, as travelers use that as a base for all the natural attractions in the area. Bali gives a good example how to divide a whole island. About the Blue Lagoon, maybe an article Reykjanes Peninsula could do it? Or we could include it in Reykjavik, as that is where most travellers come from. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:23, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Sterio's latest comment is very telling to me. This is clearly not an article.

I ask again if there is really a rule that an attraction cannot be described in a region article and nowhere else? If that is the case, just stick this in the nearest city article as the attraction that it is.

As an aside, I don't see anything wrong with the regional split of Iceland. The plan was actually re-done quite recently with extensive local input from User Sterio.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:52, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

I have not proposed re-doing the regions of Iceland, I just proposed a new article at the lowest level of the hierarchy, similar to Bukit Peninsula in Bali. But I don't know Iceland well enough, it was just a suggestion. Regions only give an overview, no listings, as written at Region article template. I agree that it is an attraction, but wouldn't know which city it should be placed in. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:30, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Attractions definitely can be listed in regions, but I'm pretty certain our practice and discussions permit them only in "bottom level regions"—"region" articles containing no separate articles beneath for cities or other destinations. They essentially serve the same purpose as a city article, but do so for an agglomeration of rural areas and towns that do not warrant their own articles. This discussion has the most information on this topic, but is going to just confuse anyone not very familiar with the topic to begin with. I'm going to whip up a blurb in Project:Geographical hierarchy, and see if it's acceptable for those involved in the evolving discussion.

I do think that this article does not meet our article criteria, and runs afoul of our Project:Bodies of water policy, so ideally, I vote merge and redirect, but only if we can come up with a good place to which we would merge and redirect (I do not know Iceland enough to help with that). Otherwise, I'd vote keep as an exception on the pragmatic basis of not having a better option. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 11:32, 30.September 2011 (EDT)

Keep it! It is nice guide to this destination and helps a lot to the tourists! Helped to me! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 77.243.16.36 (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep, unless someone can come up with a redirect that makes good sense. I agree with (WT-en) Peter. --(WT-en) inas 18:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
- Any further comment? It seems like the right move is to keep this article for now, and continue discussion on the article talk page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

I agree with your resolution. --(WT-en) Inas 17:07, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Kawah Putih

A crater/lake does not get its own article.

Delete - (WT-en) texugo 17:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Delete - Agreed. It's also copyvio from here:[2].—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 3 December 2011 (EST)

A Day By the Sea

Delete. This doesn't appear to be a true itinerary, rather it is just is just a duplication of the information already in the article on Narragansett. --(WT-en) Inas 18:58, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Delete. While not everything in this article is in the Narragansett article, I just don't see Narragansett or the content of this article as important enough to merit being kept as a second article about that town, and the somewhat promotional tone of this article bugs me. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:32, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Shanxi merchant family compounds

Delete. This has none of the characteristics of an itinerary. I suspect it is an article about an attraction, and we don't (in general) create articles for attractions. The information in the guide appears to already be duplicated at Pingyao --(WT-en) Inas 21:40, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Delete. Very well-presented argument, Inas. I have nothing to add but completely agree - since the information is already in the Pingyao guide, there's nothing to merge, and the article should simply be deleted. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:30, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Good things that travelars would like to see in afghanistan

Delete. I understand this is only a redirect, and there is little harm in it, but it is a very unlikely search, and contains a spelling mistake to boot. Can we please delete it? --(WT-en) Inas 21:49, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Delete (WT-en) Pashley 21:51, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Delete (WT-en) texugo 08:46, 17 November 2011 (EST)
Delete (WT-en) Cardboardbird 22:28, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 3 December 2011 (EST)

IATA

Delete. This one was actually speedy deleted, but I've restored it as I think it warrants a full nomination. There were previously three articles that linked to this subject (all now de-linked), but it's clearly not a valid article subject per Project:What is an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:14, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Delete. I used to work in the airline business (at a company that does airline fare search engines) and I can't understand why any traveler would need to know or care who IATA is. The only thing that comes to mind is the 3-letter airport codes. --(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
Delete. I can't think of a travel slant to this. I can't see how our article on this could be different to the Wikipedia article. --(WT-en) Inas 00:18, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:50, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Images from Umag

Image:Hotel Sol Coral.JPG
Image:Park Umag.JPG
Image:Istrian Villas.JPG
Delete - Unremarkable hotels against policy. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Delete - Seconded. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 10:15, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:16, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Image:Naked by candelight .jpg

Speedy delete. Orphaned concert advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:11, 3 December 2011 (EST)
Delete. Very disappointing considering the filename. --(WT-en) Inas 20:50, 4 December 2011 (EST)
- Heh :-) -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:21, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:21, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Image:Azur-villa-bali-seminyak.jpg and Image:Rizieres.jpg

Speedy delete. Orphaned advertising for Bali villas. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:11, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:21, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Image:未命名.jpg

Speedy delete. Orphaned image that I think is tour advertising. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:11, 3 December 2011 (EST)
Delete. It is actually advertising for a language school. See User talk:(WT-en) Friend mandarin. (WT-en) Pashley 20:52, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:21, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Images from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Sibiu Travelers Hostel

Speedy delete. These are all orphaned advertisements for a particular hostel, something that is discouraged per Wikivoyage:Image policy#Photos of businesses. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:49, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:21, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Image:DSC07344.JPG

Speedy delete. Orphaned image that I'm pretty sure is advertising for someone's bead business. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:11, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:21, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Image:Sado map.png

Delete. Orphaned, the current version appears to be corrupt, and it has been superseded by Image:SadoIsland map.png. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:06, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:58, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Image:LimassolBeachRoad.JPG

Delete. Orphaned image, the current version appears to be corrupt, and the previous version is just an unremarkable photo of a parking lot and a road. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:08, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:58, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Image:Los Rios babahoyo.jpg

Delete. Orphaned image, the current version appears to be corrupt, and the previous version is a collage that probably wouldn't ever be something that would be worth resurrecting. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:58, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Hotel redirects

Delete. These are just redirects, but we don't create redirects for hotels or hotel chains. --(WT-en) Inas 22:57, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Delete - (WT-en) texugo 08:45, 17 November 2011 (EST)
Delete Pure clutter - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 22:58, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Delete. Why not a speedy delete in this kind of situation? No-one is going to be looking for an article on a hotel without knowing at least which general area it is in, I don't think. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:32, 24 November 2011 (EST)

I didn't speedy it, because it has been there since since 2007. --(WT-en) Inas 17:08, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Keep Burj al-Arab Hotel as it is a landmark in its own right and probably one of the most famous buildings in the Middle East, but delete the rest. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:25, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Yes, Burj al-Arab should be kept. But should it be an article or just a redirect to Dubai/sleep/splurge? (WT-en) Pashley 20:44, 6 December 2011 (EST)
- It's currently a redirect, and per Wikivoyage policies on attractions I believe that's the right thing to do. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:01, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted all but Burj al-Arab Hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:22, 15 December 2011 (EST)