Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2012

December 2011 Votes for deletion archives for January 2012 February 2012

Image:Jesus is lord.jpgEdit

  • Speedy delete. Not travel related, likely copyvio, and based on the image description text this may be a scam. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Speedy deleted. I should have looked at the file date - didn't realize that this was a recent upload and that there was no need for a nomination. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 13 January 2012 (EST)


I suspect this was taken from this website. The Wayback Machine shows a version from 2002 that includes the image, predating the upload here by four years. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:44, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:33, 17 January 2012 (EST)


  • Delete. Could be a useful travel topic if fleshed out, but this one-liner dictionary entry has nothing to salvage. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:52, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. It is a legitimate topic, and a brand new article just started in the last few days. If the contributor who started it fleshes it out, great. If not, leave it in hopes it will attract a writer or five. (WT-en) Pashley 02:09, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. While possibly the weakest article on the site ;), it is a legitimate topic, and as such, should be given a year to develop per Project:Deletion_policy#Reasons_to_delete_articles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:39, 27 December 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. If the bleedin' obvious is removed, the existing article has no content. I thought the keep for a year policy was developed as a sword - to allow us to cut down stub travel topics and itineraries rather than having undeveloped articles hanging around forever. It seems strange to see it being used as a shield to keep otherwise contentless articles. --(WT-en) Inas 19:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)
The deletion policy is quite clear on this—keep stub/outline itineraries for a year. There are 7 reasons to delete as outlined in that article, and this doesn't strike me as an unusual case that would require more thought than just applying the policy as written. "Really bad articles," which this article presently is, are explicitly mentioned as something that should not be deleted (provided they do not fall into the 7 reasons above) so that they have the opportunity to develop, as Pashley says. As you know, I mostly show up on this page to make sure the deletion policy is strictly followed—I have no attachment to the article topic ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)
If someone adds a bad line of text to an existing article, we revert without a second thought. Someone adds the same line to a new article, we keep it for a year, and cite a policy which was developed to help us get rid of underdeveloped articles. Hmmm.
We have a vfd page because these things aren't always clear-cut, and need some interpretation. You're voting in favour of keeping what you said is the weakest article on the site. I'm voting to delete it. In a year, we'll agree :-) --(WT-en) Inas 23:57, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I don't see any room for interpretation, when the policy directly and explicitly defines what to do in this case. Don't like it, start a discussion to change it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:36, 10 January 2012 (EST)
I'm not sure if you don't understand what I am saying, or if you get it and disagree, so I'll try and be clear for completeness, and then drop it.
I understand your interpretation of our policy. However, I think the policy you are quoting guides us what to do with an article which remains an outline after 12 months, but doesn't effect our decision making prior to this point. The policy was created as sword, to guide us when to delete, and not a shield for articles that would otherwise be valid candidates for deletion.
So while I see the basis for your interpretation, I'm not yet convinced by it. --(WT-en) Inas 00:59, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, I understand that the 12 month bit doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete itineraries or travel topics prior to that expiration date, provided there is a deletion rationale. As far as I can tell, the argument for deletion here is that it is a bad article, but the deletion policy explicitly rules out that argument: "Really bad articles. Sometimes articles are a sloppy mess, or just a bunch of notes and ideas. These articles should be improved rather than deleted." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:59, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Okay, I'll take it to the discussion page. --(WT-en) Inas 17:11, 10 January 2012 (EST)
  • Keep. Quite apart from the policy discussion you guys are having, look at the article now. Do you still want to delete it? I don't. Clearly, not only was it susceptible to good edits, but some good editing has already occurred. I can see no good reason whatsoever to delete the article, regardless of the policy discussion. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 08:20, 11 January 2012 (EST)
"susceptible to good edits" indeed!  :-) --(WT-en) Inas 17:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • Keep - I've indeed added some info to make it a viable outline article, as I too think it's a legitimate subject. I think it's now fine to stay and hopefully be developed further by other users. (WT-en) Justme 09:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 21 January 2012 (EST)

Images from Special:Contributions/(WT-en) YaxkinspaEdit

  • Delete all. The first image shows up in a number of web searches and is "copyright Eric Schnabel" with no indication that he was the uploader. The last two are orphaned and look commercial. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
  • Delete all - I agree. (WT-en) Justme 06:57, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:25, 27 January 2012 (EST)