Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2007

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

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

Sylt edit

Delete Content is "The Island Newschannel (german)" and a link. Don't know what it could possibly redirect to. (WT-en) Maj 21:27, 13 January 2007 (EST)

  • Keep. It appears to be an actual place. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 08:41, 22 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, but it would be a good idea to replace the current non-content with an appropriate outline. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:38, 23 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, non-content has been replaced by an appropriate outline ~ 61.91.191.2 13:10, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:55, 2 February 2007 (EST)

edit

(WT-en) Maj put a {{vfd}} on this one, but didn't list it here. -- 13:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

  • Delete unless a suitable explanation is given. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Ninassalvador.jpg edit

Image:Ninosalvador.jpg edit

  • Delete. Per Project:Image policy a photo of recognizable people must have a model release. Also, the lack of source and image size makes me suspect copyvio. To the uploader: please see Project:Copyleft. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:13, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Coatepequelake.jpg edit

This and Image:Jiquilisco.jpg have been taken from a helicopter with an inertially stabilized camera and hence, unless the contributor is a serious pro, these are highly likely to be copyvios. I'd suggest deleting all of Defpunkg's pictures. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:53, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Elimposible12.jpg can be found amidst this pdf. Image:SanAndres.jpg is also located at [1]. So unless better documentation is made then I think we have to assume the pictures are copyvio and delete them all. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:20, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Smalloven.jpg edit

Violates Wikivoyage policy about people in photos. Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:11, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Kathgodam.jpg edit

This is not an image of a train passing through the Himalaya mountains as it claims, it was taken in the Selkirk mountains in British Columbia. Furthermore, this is a duplicate of WikiPedia:Image:Eastbound over SCB.jpg, which is only GFDL licenced, and I doubt that the author would have also licenced it as cc-by-sa, so it seems probable to be a copyvio. (WT-en) JYolkowski 13:15, 21 January 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. When I first saw the image, my brain said "I didn't know some mountains in India look exactly like the Canadian Rockies." I think some little voice in my head was saying "Canadian Pacific" and I ignored it. GAH -- (WT-en) Colin 22:03, 21 January 2007 (EST)
  • This thing needs to be deleted ASAP, unless someone's going to contact the real photographer and see if they'll license it under the CC-by SA license. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 22:46, 21 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. As an aside, some of the comments left on this user's talk page are a bit harsh - it might be worthwhile to read Meatball:ForgiveAndForget and remember that everyone makes mistakes, but it's good to give them a chance to redeem those mistakes. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
    • It's one thing to upload a copyrighted image by accident or cluelessness, but it's another to intentionally lie and claim it as your own work when it isn't! The only reason I'm not calling for Upamanyu to be banned forever is that he's just 13. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:45, 21 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. I'm disappointed Upamanyu, if this is true! I've been trying to work hard with you, please don't do things like this again! I know you were just trying to help and improve things, but this damages the site, it doesn't help it. I've removed it from the Nainital page for now since it seems highly likely to be deleted. (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 02:00, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Category:Airports edit

I don't think we want to do this sort of category. Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:47, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I think that if the airport article meets the Project:What is an article? criteria (which I remember reading of certain airports that do) surely it's a good idea to keep a category of them? As far as I'm aware we're not doing categories properly yet on EN, but when we do get round to doing it, when we start categorising ski resorts, beach destinations etc together, airports are going to get categorised as well. I fully agree that most airports are not going to satisfy Project:What is an article?, but the really big ones will - people will end up staying over night, and where do we put info about that airport?? For example, Heathrow isn't in London and for that matter its not really in any town or city, yet it has numerous shops, restaurants, banks, bars, hotels.... So, in conclusion, don't delete this! -- (WT-en) Tim 07:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Generally I'd rather group stuff together in actual articles rather than using categorize as a substitute for needed articles. Make a Travel topic if this is needed. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:29, 26 January 2007 (EST)
    • Okay, that's a fair point. Delete-- (WT-en) Tim 11:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Nainital gardens.jpg edit

  • Delete. Uploaded by user who has directly misrepresented a different image as his own. We can't trust stuff from this user now. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
  • DELETE. I uploaded the image from www.neemranahotels.com and it isn't CCSA licensed. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 03:40, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Image:SARI.gif edit

  • Delete. It's pretty clear that this image came from another web site somewhere, and there is no indication that it has been CC-SA licensed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:12, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Tankmania edit

Speedy delete- doesn't fit with Project:What is an article?. -- (WT-en) Tim 10:27, 30 January 2007 (EST)

  • Delete, speedy ~ 61.91.191.2 11:44, 30 January 2007 (EST)
Speedy deleted (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 06:24, 4 February 2007 (EST)


Porto-Novo - The capital edit

  • Delete. The article is blank and there is already one for Porto-Novo. - (WT-en) DanielC 08:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Should we just redirect? Delete is fine, too, though. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:34, 26 January 2007 (EST)
  • Redirected. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:56, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Business in india edit

  • Delete. New page, only content was "there is no business in india india is an poor country". (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 09:06, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. I wonder who's paying my consulting fees for the past 3 months then... (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:57, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:56, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Image:Langebaan1.jpg edit

  • Delete. Has a hotel website link typed across the image. - the page is all info copied by the hotel from their website, as well... (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 06:57, 25 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. I'm also going to copyvio the page. A large percentage of that info (said to belong to http://www.langebaan.biz/ where it has a copyright notice) seems to have originally been copied and pasted from http://www.sawestcoast.com/park.html, that is in itself a copy of an article from a privately owned newspaper called The Cape Odyssey. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:31, 25 January 2007 (EST)
  • Deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:56, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Westbank kirby edit

  • Delete. Created by a user, then redirected to his userpage. Could I have just speedy deleted this one, or does it need to go through due process? (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 07:51, 25 January 2007 (EST)
  • Yes. A speedy would have been fine. Deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:59, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Ladies Market edit

Was marked with a vfd in October. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 22:07, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Example.jpg edit

Uploader says the image is available under CC-by-SA 1.0, but I suspect that it's not and request for clarification have gone unanswered. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 18:05, 12 January 2007 (EST)

  • Why do you doubt the copyleft? I see nothing about the photo to suggest it's anything other than a personal image uploaded by the owner. There are some compositional aspects to it that say "amateur" rather than "professional" to me, and I can't find it on any other websites. I haven't made up my mind about a vote yet, but I'd like to know what's bugging you about the thing. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:03, 13 January 2007 (EST)
  • The toolbar buttons for inserting an image add example.jpg as the image. (You can test this by enabling the "Show edit toolbar" toggle on the "Editing" tab of your user preferences, then editing a page and clicking on the button that looks like a little landscape. We should probably swap it out for something useful, like a gray square that says "EXAMPLE IMAGE". --(WT-en) evanp 01:51, 14 January 2007 (EST)
    • OK, I follow that. If the image is not a copyvio, another path forward would be to rename it to something more descriptive and delete the redirect page. And yes, replacing the example.jpg reference with (foo) seems like a good idea, independent of the outcome of this particular VFD. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:07, 14 January 2007 (EST)
So any objections to moving it to Image:BophutBeach.jpg? --(WT-en) Jonboy 18:52, 28 January 2007 (EST)
No, let's do it. -- (WT-en) Andrew (Sapphire) 19:11, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, the move turns out not to be possible owing to a quirk of the software; apparently you can't do moves/redirects in the Image namespace. What now? Let's get this resolved. (I reluctantly vote delete under the circumstances.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:03, 2 February 2007 (EST)

It's possible to download the image, then re-upload it, provided Philweaver is attributed. I'll do it, but I'm busy today so it'll be a while before I get around to it. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:13, 3 February 2007 (EST)
  • Evan fixed this by uploading a real example.jpg. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 09:02, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Kaleshwar Temple, Nerur edit

  • Delete. Doesn't meet article criteria, it's for a temple, and all info was copied from their website. (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 08:02, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:37, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Image:Yantai_fun_map_of_yantai.jpg edit

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:59, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Image:Saigon busmap.jpg edit

Claimed as PD-creator, but obviously scanned from a printed map. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:28, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:05, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Heathrow airport edit

  • Delete. Redirect to London is OK by me as well. An airport is listed as a rare exception to get its own article per Project:What is an article?, but this one wasn't discussed and was a copyvio from Wikipedia to boot. Personally I'd rather not see articles for airports unless there is a good reason for such an article to be created. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:44, 20 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep - as a redirect ~ 61.91.191.11 06:41, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep - As Article ~ Heathrow being the busiest international airport on earth (according to Capital Radio some time ago), it should be worthy of description. Perhaps in more detail (WT-en) MiddleEastern 11:41, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep as article - I agree with MiddleEastern - there are numerous bars/restaurants/hotels here, and it's hardly in London - it's about 30 miles out of the centre, and only just inside the M25. Plus, as it is one of the main hubs for international flights, people will be passing through here and spending time waiting for connections, where they may well want a hotel/meal/few drinks, so it makes sense to keep it as an article in it's own right. -- (WT-en) Tim 08:45, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. Heathrow is the sort of mega-airport that warrants an article. It's arguably its own district of London. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:47, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Problem with all this is that maybe it "could be" an article, but in point of fact, it is not one as of today. If someone wants to turn this into at least an outline, go for it, but I see no point in keeping something around that's completely empty and could fit gracefully into the obvious city article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:03, 14 February 2007 (EST)
Started. In fact, I'd be pleased to see most of the Heathrow information in the London article moved here, because it features an unusually specific level of information about where to eat etc, in what is (for all practical purposes) a region article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)
Looks OK to me. Keep; I think there's a clear consensus on this one, so will deal with the paperwork shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:23, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:26, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Image:Orbetello Argentario.jpg and others edit

The following uploads by a single contributor are nominated:

  • Delete. Proper attribution (including photographer and copyright holder) is not provided though uploader claims that these are licensed under cc-bysa. Unless he owns a Satellite, he didn't take them all himself, so he needs to explain why these are copyable. All photos uploaded appear in a photo gallery at Yahoo Italy linked to from the city's website. No information about copyrights is given in the photo gallery. So unless the contributor has more information about these, I would guess he misunderstood copyright and we should delete these. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:56, 28 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. Of course, the first picture is taken from satellite, is one of those you can easily find all over the web and I made some changes on it with photoshop. I really don't know whether anyone can hold rights on such a picture. The other pictures are mine and I provided them to the photogallery you mentioned and I set them as free to use. As you can see, some of them are used also in the web site of Comune di Orbetello, but they simply use them and don't hold any other rights on them -- (WT-en) Pino Fusi 10:14, 29 January 2007 (EST)
  • What Jonboy voted. Satellite photos definitely can be copyrighted (read the watermarks on Google Earth; Google has paid some big bucks for he rights to use some of these images), so unless you can establish that the image is public domain (such as those coming from NASA), we have to assume it is not. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:45, 14 February 2007 (EST)
    • This looks right to me. I've deleted the satellite photo, but it appears that the others can stay unless there's evidence to the contrary. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:23, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Image:Orbetello Argentario.jpg deleted, all others kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:34, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Mile edit

  • Keep (albeit a weak one) - out of idle curiosity I've converted it to a disambiguation page. Clearly it's not a disambiguation that we "need", but then again it probably won't do any harm either. However I've no problem with it being deleted if anyone considers it unhelpful (if so, maybe save the original "distance conversion" content elsewhere?). ~ 61.91.191.2 03:07, 31 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. The redirect is gratuitous (although thanks for trying). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:27, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:32, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Futuroscope edit

Delete - A Theme park, but unlike Disneyland, you can't sleep here (as far as I'm aware) therefore it doesn't fit with Project:What is an article?. -- (WT-en) Tim 11:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)

  • Keep, redirect ~ 61.91.191.2 11:45, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, at least for now. It appears that there is lodging there, after a fashion, and that it's really associated with the park. A merger with Poitiers seems reasonable once that article is populated, n'est-ce pas? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:36, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Delete - A Theme park, but unlike Disneyland, you can't sleep here (as far as I'm aware) therefore it doesn't fit with us IMO.

Outcome: Kept for now; possibly an eventual merge into Poitiers. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:37, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Image:Wiki_loungelogo.jpg edit

  • Delete. It comes from this site, and there is no indication that it has been CC-SA licensed. -- (WT-en) Ctbolt 00:11, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Image:Medanmap1.jpg edit

Claimed as CC by-sa, but no source given and appears to be scanned from a printed map. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:46, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:47, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Three Rondavels edit

  • Delete. The is a non-article :: (WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:03, 4 February 2007 (EST)
    • Redirect to Blyde River Canyon is probably better as this is a feature of the canyon. I have reused the photo there already. -- (WT-en) NJR_ZA 11:10, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Blyde River Canyon. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:52, 19 February 2007 (EST)

"Devon Hiking Spa" (redirect) edit

Conflicts with the Project:Internal links#Other namespaces guidelines - Do not link to articles in other namespaces (Wikivoyage:, User:, Talk:) from the main namespace. Alternatively the guidelines could be clarified to permit #REDIRECT links to the User: namespace from the main namespace (but slippery slope?) or it could be redirected elsewhere (Arizona? Colorado? Vermont? - but surely an even slipperier slope) ~ 61.91.191.11 03:00, 4 February 2007 (EST)

  • Delete - I've seen this at least one other time as well when a user creates a page in the main namespace and then we redirect it to their user page... I don't think we should do this... I think they should be speedy deleted when created - any objections? (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 05:54, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep - If the last sentence comes out (the url) the listing fits within the stated guidelines. The sentence with the URL has been taken out. It should no longer be an issue. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.8.202.109 (talk • contribs) 7 Feb 2007
  • Delete. I don't understand our anonymous contributor's commment. Also, I added the {{vfd}} template to the article -- which is sort of weird with a redirect article, but it seems like it needed to be done. Agree that speedy deleting for this circumstance should be policy, but that discussion should be carried out elsewhere. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 10:19, 7 February 2007 (EST)
I noticed on Project:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion that are policy already does call for speedy delete in a case like this (WT-en) - Cacahuate 20:22, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:02, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Nl:Wikivoyage:Welkom edit

Shows up on en:Special:Lonelypages (NB:en:) - I think the "real" page is nl:Project:Welkom, nieuwkomers ~ 61.91.191.2 08:54, 1 February 2007 (EST)

  • What's this all about? Maybe it shows up on the English-language Lonelypages record, but the page itself is in the Dutch namespace, not ours, and I definitely do not want to get into the business of deleting stuff on other language versions of WT, even if I can (which I doubt). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:06, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. No choice, can't delete something on another language's pages. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:04, 20 February 2007 (EST)


Two images by myself edit

I messed up, please can we have these two deleted. Note the capital T in WikiTravel, please don't delete the versions with lowercase t

Thanks --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:03, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - requested by creator, these were a work in progress (WT-en) - Cacahuate 04:16, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Image:Renee zellweger.jpg edit

  • Any objections to a speedy delete on this one? Seems like someone got the wrong site. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 15:58, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Nah, I went ahead and did it... I think it's better to get rid of these ASAP, and the Project:Deletion policy says under "speedy delete" that admins can SD things that never have the potential to be an article (or part of one). I certainly understand a checks and balances system for admins, but I also think that we should make use of the SD a little more often, it adds more work to put things through VFD that will obviously never be kept. Is that ok with people? (WT-en) - Cacahuate 19:25, 21 February 2007 (EST)
I guess part of my brain was wondering if Renee wanted this for her user page.  :-) --(WT-en) Jonboy 20:11, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted, see above (WT-en) - Cacahuate 20:19, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Skulkul edit

Outcome: speedy deleted, a page dedicated to a dog (WT-en) - Cacahuate 00:54, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Culture of st petersburg russia edit

Outcome: speedy deleted, not a potential WT article (WT-en) - Cacahuate 00:54, 22 February 2007 (EST)


Image:Oktoberfest Cincinnati.jpg edit

  • I could identify the two people with beer bellies in front, if I knew them, so this image probably violates privacy policy as no mention of a model release is made. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 22:52, 24 February 2007 (EST)
What if we cropped them out? --(WT-en) Jonboy 23:10, 27 February 2007 (EST)
That wouldn't be a bad idea. Anyone want to take a stab at it? I'm bogged down with geo data being downloaded and then transfered to a more sensible format and it's taking up a lot of virtual memory so I won't be able to do it for a few days. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)
It's appreciate, but I was more concerned with the guy in front with the sun glasses on. Sure, he has sun glasses on that might hide him, but just to play it safe I'd prefer him cropped out. I'd also like the woman behind him cropped out, but since she's a little more blurred I can live with it, if she isn't. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 02:17, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Krakow/Podgorze edit

Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Seems to be a valid district, but content is empty and since it's not linked from the main namespace we might as well delete, per the guilty until proven philosophy. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)
  • Based on the Wikipedia entry for Podgorze, this looks like a valid district that is not duplicated by anything else on Krakow. Keep and eventually make an article out of it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Were all of the others that are listed on Sapphire's link above (that have since been deleted except for this one) any different? Why was this the only one kept, was it the only one that didn't overlap? I would lean towards keep – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Most of the others were sub-districts. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Verdict: Kept - no consensus to delete, seems to have article potential – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2007&oldid=1890640"