Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2012

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← January 2012 Votes for deletion archives for February 2012 (current) March 2012 →
  • Merge/Delete. An article about a pagoda is not a Wikivoyage article, per Project:What is an article? - with the following exceptions: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." Large and complex wouldn't seem to apply to what's described as "the oldest known church building in China," and it is clearly a viable day trip away from Xian. I'd suggest taking the essential information from this article and appending it to the "Get out" section of the Xian guide. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
    • "Get out" is for links to other destinations. It can't be both deleted as a destination article, and placed in a "Get out" section. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:32, 2 December 2011 (EST)
      • I didn't realize that all "Get out" items had to include a link to another article. In that case, the info could be inserted in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian#See, though I find that problematic because I think a day trip taking a couple of hours or more each way should really be in "Get out." (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 18:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)
I've never heard such a rule, LtPowers. As far as I know, the Get out section is for things that would be good as a daytrip, whether they actually have their own article or not.(WT-en) texugo 00:37, 3 December 2011 (EST)
Project:Big city article template says Get Out is for "Information about nearby destinations that would serve as a good 'next stop.'" I've never seen any case made for allowing non-destination listings in the Get Out section. Think about it -- if it's an attraction, it belongs in "See" or "Do"; why make the reader check both places for something to do? (WT-en) LtPowers 20:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)
Because it's 62 km from Xian and the trip from Xian to there takes 1-3 hours by bus. It's not an attraction in or even that close to the city. That's why it makes sense for it to be a "Get out." Is your alternative to put the information in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian#See? What would your distance limit be for that kind of subsection? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 00:06, 5 December 2011 (EST)
I agree with (WT-en) LtPowers. Attractions that are commonly visited from a destination should be in the See/Do sections of that articles. Get out is a what comes next in the journey section, and not for attractions that lie further afield (no matter how far). The confusion in the heading has been discussed before, including here --(WT-en) Inas 00:25, 5 December 2011 (EST)
Going by that linked discussion, we really ought to revisit the confusing "Get out" subtitle. However, in any case, would any of you like to weigh in on whether or not you support deleting the article in question and merging the information as appropriate into the relevant section of the Xian article? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 01:02, 5 December 2011 (EST)
I think it is an obvious candidate for merging. There are only a handful of attractions which justify their own article. Doing the merge is the real issue. If this was just merged and redirected I think no one would have raised an eyebrow on vfd. --(WT-en) Inas 21:21, 7 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:30, 5 February 2012 (EST)

A seemingly unnecessary region article. We already have articles on two of the towns (Houma and Thibodaux), the Acadiana region, and even some of the parishes within it. I would delete this, or at most, redirect it to Acadiana. (WT-en) Eco84 09:13, 12 December 2011 (EST)

I would recommend redirecting both this article and Thibodaux to Houma. It's more useful for travelers to just subsume the surrounding areas under Houma (most people refer to the whole area as Houma, anyway--if I'm not mistaken). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:37, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 5 February 2012 (EST)

  • Delete. Purely advertising article about a private hamlet that is apparently solely and completely occupied by an agroturism property which is appropriately listed in the Reggello guide as being within walking distance of Reggello and cannot in any case be listed in more than one article, per don't tout. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 21:59, 21 December 2011 (EST)
  • Redirect real places. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:10, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Good point. Redirect is a better thing to do. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Per further discussion below, I am changing my vote back to Delete. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 17:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
One problem with a redirect is that "La Torre" just means "The Tower" in Italian and Spanish and could refer to any of thousands of towers in Italy and any number of other countries. So there would have to be a doozie of a disambiguation page if a redirect is approved. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:50, 22 December 2011 (EST)
So, why would you vote for a redirect? Change your vote back to delete, and lets convince (WT-en) LtPowers to change his :-) Every time we create a redirect, we block the default search action, which find the term in each of the articles which they are mentioned in. --(WT-en) Inas 17:07, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Could you please have another look at this? I think you are coming to the wrong result.
There are also many places with this name. All with more significance than the article in question.
The way I see it, someone created this article for what is a completely private attraction. It is a farm stay, and olive farm.
If we redirect this private attraction article to a nearby town, at the expense of the many other places with the same name, I think we are truly going against the spirit of the VFD policy.
Lets just restore the status quo, and when someone actually comes along with an interest with clarifying the destination, they can do so. Attraction articles should be deleted. --(WT-en) Inas 17:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Ah, this is actually just a business, which the linked policy above does recommend to delete. As an aside, I don't see how this is an attraction, a farm stay seems like accommodation. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)
  • Page contributor reply Hi guys , just for explain : "La Torre" is a real suburbs of Reggello , it's the name of a place,an ancient hamlet on top of the Reggello hills. Anyway is right your comments below, a name "La Torre" is disambiguation, there are many words and many places called "La Torre" . Maybe i can change the name to : "Località La Torre" or " Località La Torre - Reggello" , think it's better. For the content i will delete what i wrote regard the agritourism , the olive farm, private house and link to , and write only a description of the place and maybe the history, when I have translated. Let me know what you think about the new page, and sorry for any inconvenience for my early contributions Martin (WT-en) MisterX 14.4, 23 December 2011 (EST) - Edit : done the modify in the page , but i cant change the name to " Località La Torre "
I really would suggest that if you come to Wikivoyage to add information about your property or attraction, that you add it to an existing article where it would be of interest to visitors, rather than creating a new article for the information. It's better for you, clearer for the traveller, and easier on site administration. Of course, if you want to hang around, and participate in organising the geographical hierarchy of the area, you are incredibly welcome to do so. --(WT-en) Inas 18:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)
  • I suggested "redirect" because Ikan said this was a hamlet, which would make it a real place and not just an attraction. If there are other places with this name, then it should be a disambiguation page. If it's not really a community but just an attraction, then I'm fine with deletion. Sorry for not researching further. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:54, 23 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete If the name is too generic then let's just delete it unless those other places are cities rather than other attractions/districts. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 06:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • Delete. For the reasons given by others. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:16, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:35, 5 February 2012 (EST)

  • Merge as necessary/Delete - I can't see a good reason why the requisite information couldn't be merged into the Zagreb guide as needed, with the article in question deleted. I don't see a need for a redirect, as "AIRPORT ZAGREB" is not a common search term in English. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 03:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete - It's not really useful and mostly an ad for taxi company. (WT-en) Jjtk 05:28, 26 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. All the information that isn't an ad is a direct, and uncredited, copy of the text from Wikipedia without any particular travel relevance. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Is the taxi worth mentioning in Zagreb/Get in? (WT-en) Pashley 02:05, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Redirect per Project:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:42, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Developed as an ad. Not an article. Unlikely search term (to that extent agree with (WT-en) Ikan Kekek) --(WT-en) Inas 19:31, 8 January 2012 (EST)
  • Delete since much of this is copied from Wikipedia without attribution and the term isn't a useful redirect term. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:20, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:36, 5 February 2012 (EST)

  • Speedy delete. This is a tour advertisement that should have been speedy deleted previously but was apparently overlooked. User:(WT-en) Felix505 tagged it with a VFD earlier today, listing here for completeness. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:38, 5 February 2012 (EST)
I stopped listing such things here due to previous hints not to. That individual has been spamming the Malaysian articles pretty determinedly, some of it goes back a while and has taken some excavation work to undo, there maybe some more hiding under IPs. -- (WT-en) felix 14:15, 5 February 2012 (EST)
I listed it here per Project:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion: "New pages that are plainly spam and that qualify for speedy deletion will be deleted as soon as they are noticed by an administrator, and therefore do not need to listed on the votes for deletion page. If such a page remains for more than 24 hours, add it to the nominations page as a way to ensure that it isn't overlooked.".
While the article in question seems like a clear speedy delete, since it's been on the site for three months it seems best to put it through the normal VFD process. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

  • Delete. These are both orphaned images of Thai script that I'm guessing may have been uploaded at a time when browser support for non-English characters was less prevalent. Per the deletion policy there is no reason to keep orphaned images that are not likely to be re-integrated into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:50, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and being only 350x163 and of such poor quality I can't imagine it would be likely to be re-integrated into any article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a prairie dog in the Belfast Zoo. Given its small size (216x150) and the fact that the Belfast article now has other, more travel-relevant images, this seems unlikely ever to be re-integrated into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

  • Delete. Recognizable individuals with no model releases provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned map image that has been superseded by maps currently displayed in the Tokyo article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:12, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

  • Speedy delete, not a noteworthy location and the image is the subject of repetitive insertion into the Dharamshala article by an anon IP. It has been removed from the article by several editors at least 5 times in the last few weeks.--(WT-en) felix 23:52, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, connection problems today, just noticed this is a WT Shared image, I have listed it there now. -- (WT-en) felix 00:44, 15 February 2012 (EST)
  • Delete. This article is 4+ years out of date and does not include any relevant travel information. (There is a mention of a bad charge and bedbugs, but the links are broken so there is no evidence of these claims. Even so, this article is still 4 years old!) It appears to be a personal attack on the previous owner of 4 hotels. Three of those hotels were sold since this article was written, the 4th was refurbished and renamed. Attempts to update anything were reverted, and once again, this is a travel site and the article is about a PERSON. Completely irrelevant. -- (WT-en) Purplestripedone 16:32, 22 February 2012 (EST)
  • Archive. Talk page dscussions should be kept more-or-less forever as part of the wiki record. On the other hand, this is a personal attack and apparently outdated, there's no need to keep it visible. (WT-en) Pashley 00:40, 23 February 2012 (EST)
  • Speedy keep and Archive. Let me just point out that by "Speedy keep" I mean the talk page itself shouldn't be deleted - that's just silly. As for the content of the page, I agree with Pashley that it should be archived as it seems to be outdated at this point. That said, I don't see this as an unwarranted personal attack - Asterix deleted these hotel listings from Wikivoyage and, being a new user who had not yet gained trust, gave a justification for doing so. Granted, Asterix may have...let's say, gone beyond the call of duty in this case, but at its most basic this (offering justification for deleting listings) is what we want new users to do. While the information itself is outdated and we don't need it so visible now, I don't think we should point to this as an example of bad behavior. EDIT: Given the information that D. Guillaime posted below, I change my mind about this information being obsolete. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:57, 23 February 2012 (EST)
  • PerryPlanet, doesn't the VFD box need to stay on the page for 14 days? Why was it deleted? Also,I still fail to see how any of the info on this talk page relates to the goals of the Wiki site. It's about a person, not a place. 71.229.101.13 13:48, 23 February 2012 (EST)
I do apologize for removing the VFD box on sight; I thought someone had made a mistake in posting it there. However, talk pages are not to be deleted. You can question whether the content in the talk page is appropriate, but the talk page itself needs to remain as a place where users can discuss the article. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:58, 23 February 2012 (EST)
  • Speedy keep, as per talk page policy. I wouldn't consider it outdated, either; there have been ongoing attempts to overwrite it over the intervening years, both with advertising from the above anonymous IP just a few days ago , or simply trying to replace it entirely with a URL to one of the Colombini (planned?) properties . It appears to remain a relevant caution for article maintenance. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 15:24, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Speedy kept. There is no deletion rationale provided here, and our policy is clear on when discussions should or should not be deleted. This seems a borderline abuse of the vfd process, and doesn't need two weeks. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:24, 25 February 2012 (EST)

  • Speedy delete. Article about a business, delete per Project:What is an article. Listing it on the VFD page rather than deleting immediately since it seems to have been created in good faith rather than solely as an advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:55, 21 February 2012 (EST)
  • Speedy delete. I don't see the good faith. I do see the advertisement. It looks like a brochure, complete with a dead giveaway "Reach us" section. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:39, 21 February 2012 (EST)
  • If it is good faith, why not merge, minus touting, and redirect? It seems to be a real place. (WT-en) Pashley 21:35, 21 February 2012 (EST)
Per the deletion policy: "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) • 21:47, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:30, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2012&oldid=4065719"