Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2006

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in June 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/May 2006 or Project:Votes for deletion/July 2006 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

  • Delete: These are all dupes of Image:P1010170.jpg, Image:P1010087.jpg, Image:P1010103.jpg, Image:P1010024.jpg (i.e. same name, but lowercase "jpg"). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:50, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 09:09, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I suspect, without proof, that Beth reloaded these with a by-line to imply release under CC-SA, which is a commendable reason for reloading, but an unnecessary one. I just dropped her a note suggesting an easier way to get the release headaches dealt with; suggest we hold off on deleting these until she responds. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:59, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete — no harm in holding off beyond 14 days, and the admin who does the delete should take care to copy the credits on to the original images. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:24, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Since Bus travel in Israel is forbidden, this article is also not allowed. --(WT-en) Daniel575 30 May 2006
  • Childish retaliatory VFD by someone unwilling to work within consensus. Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:06, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is a well developed article. Wait out the 14 day process before removing VFD though. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:07, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This article was listed here as a retaliation for the vfd of the Egged Travels article, which is definitely not a reason for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:52, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. As they say on Wikipedia, "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point". -- (WT-en) Colin 23:12, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:27, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Europe is home of trains and this website is extremely useful.
  • Please keep. I have found this article very useful.
  • Since Bus travel in Israel is forbidden, this article is also not allowed. --(WT-en) Daniel575 30 May 2006
  • Childish retaliatory VFD by someone unwilling to work within consensus. Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:06, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is a well developed article. Wait out the 14 day process before removing VFD though. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:07, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Same as in previous entry. Sigh... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:14, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This article was listed here as a retaliation for the vfd of the Egged Travels article, which is definitely not a reason for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:52, 29 May 2006 (EDT)

Keep. Useful information.

  • Keep. As they say on Wikipedia, "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point". -- (WT-en) Colin 23:13, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:27, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I found this extremely helpful. (WT-en) Robby 1:18, 30 May 2006 (MST)
  • Keep. I also found this extremely helpful. I don't see what the problem with it might be.
  • please keep - very useful list of the cheapo airlines andogo advie abut useing them - impossible to find unbiased opiniona elsewhere
  • please keep this - it is a very useful set of links not found on standard search engines - indeed I wonder if the move to delete was not initiated by one of them!
  • Keep. it's awesome
  • Keep. Very useful and accurate. A great help to those of us in the Southern Lands.220.236.34.177 00:24, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

This article is unbelievably helpful. It would be a shame to see it deleted.

  • Keep. This is very useful information and has helped tremendously. Has all European discount airlines on one page so you know what your options are.
  • Keep. I found this page both interesting and helpful.
  • Keep. Very useful!
  • Since Bus travel in Israel is forbidden, this article is also not allowed. --(WT-en) Daniel575 30 May 2006
  • Childish retaliatory VFD by someone unwilling to work within consensus. Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:06, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is a well developed article. Wait out the 14 day process before removing VFD though. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:03, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:14, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This article was listed here as a retaliation for the vfd of the Egged Travels article, which is definitely not a reason for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:52, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. As they say on Wikipedia, "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point". -- (WT-en) Colin 23:13, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:27, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This pages are very helpful
  • Keep. I return to this page again and again. No reason why it should be up for debate.
  • Delete. An anon user slapped a vfd notice on this article on 20 April. Seems to me to be just a type of attraction that should be integrated into San Francisco. Article was created in the early era of Wikivoyage two months before Project:What is an article? was written. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:41, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. This doesn't need an article. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 15:54, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete for the above reason. Sorry I forgot to put the vfd notice up here. (WT-en) Sapphire 17:48, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete after integrating into San Francisco#Do. Sad to see it go, as its one of the oldest articles on the site. --(WT-en) Evan 15:27, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by user who has not responded to a request on 28 Dec 2005 for copyright information. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:21, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by user who has not responded to a request on 28 Dec 2005 for copyright information. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:21, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
    • This is quite a good photo, and if someone can clarify the copyright status, it would be nice to have in the Milwaukee article. Clock is ticking, though, and we can't have known copyvios here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:39, 28 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by user who has not responded to a request on 28 Dec 2005 for copyright information. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:21, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by user who has not responded to a request on 28 Dec 2005 for copyright information. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:21, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. No copyright info provided since it was requested 14 April 2006. Uploader has previously uploaded content from other websites without attribution. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:26, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. No copyright info provided since it was requested 14 April 2006. Uploader has previously uploaded content from other websites without attribution. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:26, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. No copyright info provided since it was requested 14 April 2006. Uploader has previously uploaded content from other websites without attribution. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:26, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I can't see how this can become an article or travel topic. We should however strive to include family friendly activities in destination articles. (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 22:48, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
Or confused Wikivoyage with WikiPedia. Agree, it should be removed. -(WT-en) SHC 22:48, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Old district and will be transfered to new district structure in Berlin#districts. (WT-en) Jan 03:15, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Since this one, unlike most of the other deleted Berlin districts, does have content (although it appears to have been duplicated into Berlin/Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, I'd like to give it one last opportunity for dissent before nuking it. Going once, going twice ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:22, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

No model release and somewhat uncertain copyright status. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:19, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

  • Merge info and delete. Anyone know where this attraction is? - Sapphire
    • The article states Israel, but the one I found is in Leicestershire, England. Wikipedia bears this out. Searching for a Crusades-era site in Israel, however, locates another castle of the same name which is indeed in Israel . Disambig? (WT-en) KillerChihuahua 11:07, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
      • Disambig for sure, and rather than delete, merge into -- something. Not sure what, but the content shouldn't be thrown out. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:31, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Resolution: I've started the disambiguation and removed the vfd banner. However, in my opinion, this one is still open for discussion. There are other attractions far enough out in the boonies (e.g. Panmunjeom) that consensus is to treat them as destinations even though they don't pass the you-can-sleep-there test in a very satisfying way. It would be nice if someone could do the research to see just how far out in the boonies this thing is -- distance to nearest place where you can sleep, etc. -- and if applicable, set up an article for the closest place to sleep, into which the content of this article can be merged. (Interestingly, none of KillerChihuahua's citations help much with that.) Until then, it remains, lacking anything satisfactory to do with it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 3 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Claims to be a town in Nigeria, Wikipedia describes it as "a council in the Federal Capital Terriority" which is at best unclear. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:24, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Comment: GWB's wife visited there a few months ago. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:10, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep. "Gwagwalada is a largely impoverished city near the capital Abuja with a population of 1.2 million." . -- (WT-en) Jonboy 08:31, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. This site lists it with a population more like 8800, which is barely a bump on the side of Abuja, and other sources imply a similarly minor place. When someone writes an Abuja article, this place should be folded into it, but no reason to keep it around for now. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:33, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from a website" by my browser can't find the website. Unknown license. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • I found the source by transposing "polksa" to "polska". The site's in Polish, but contains the English phrase "all rights reserved", so it's presumably another copyvio. Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

Article has been completely changed and as of May 30 complies to all requirements. --(WT-en) Daniel575 30 May 2006

  • Delete. Sorry but this is neither a destination nor a travel topic. It's more like encyclopedic information. For the most part a traveller would be better served by information provided on site by the primary source. -- (WT-en) Mark 17:49, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's TMI. When the contributor is gone, who is going to maintain this list? No one. Better to provide general information about Egged lines which is less prone to change, and let Egged lines handle distribution of fully up-to-date information about their routes and schedules. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:57, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
So we should delete every page which is written and maintained by a single person, because if that person would leave, nobody would maintain the page? I think we should delete about three quarters of Wikivoyage, then. -- (WT-en) Daniel575 20:39, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I worked on this article for hours. I am threatening (yes, you read it correctly): if this article is deleted from Wikipedia, then I am deleting myself from Wikipedia. I invite all of you to go to www.egged.co.il/Eng and take a look for yourself. You try to find yourself a way to travel from Kiryat Shemona to Bnei Brak there. Or from Jerusalem to Ramat Beit Shemesh. You won't. That website is deserves the consumers prize for the most user-unfriendly website ever built in the entire world of travelling. It is totally useless to anyone.
Let me explain: if you want to leave from Jerusalem to anywhere, you have to *know* from which of the tree bus stations your bus leaves. If you don't know, you won't get any results. For example, there are 4 lines from Jerusalem to Ramat Beit Shemesh. Three go from Jerusalem Har Chotzvim; one goes from Jerusalem (meaning, central bus station). The first bus from the central bus station leaves at 14:00. The other three lines also have a stop 50 meters away from the central bus station, right in front of it. They leave every 15-30 minutes each, from 6:00 to 23:00. Now, you are a tourist, and you want to go to Ramat Beit Shemesh. So you go to that website, you look for Jerusalem - Ramat Beit Shemesh, and what do you see? Ten buses a day. While there are in fact at least 50 or so (probably more).
This gets even worse if you want to travel, for example, from Tel Aviv to Haifa. In Tel Aviv, there are two major bus terminals - in Haifa, there are three. Thus, you will have to try SIX different options if you want to find buses from Tel Aviv to Haifa!
This article I am writing here is intended to replace that information which Egged itself does not provide. Egged is the most horrible company in the world when it comes to providing information to (potential) passengers, which is a shame indeed, since the buses are very neat and luxurous, and fast, and cheap. But for 'outsiders', Egged is almost unaccessible, because of the extreme difficulty involved in obtaining the travelling information that you want.
Now, once more, I repeat, delete this article and you can delete my entire account with it. -- (WT-en) Daniel575 20:39, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • One more note. You really seriously propose that I incorporate the entire article into the Israel page? Sure, I'd do that, if you want. Fine. Just that the page will suddenly be twice as long and look extremely weird. What other country page has a list of bus lines on its country page?! But if that's what you want, fine. -- (WT-en) Daniel575 20:51, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's simply not a destination, nor a travel topic, nor an itinerary, nor anything else that fits into the "article" category as defined here. We hope you'll stay, and we'll miss you if you don't, but this isn't Wikipedia. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:34, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The info should be incorporated into the individual city pages under Israel: buses from Tel Aviv into Tel Aviv, etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:02, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep (at least for now). If what Daniel says is true, it's possible that this information isn't being made avaiable to travellers anywhere else. It's really, really not in keeping with our typical guidelines, but I'd like to find this data a home rather than wipe it off the site forever. Daniel, your work is appreciated, but this level of detail on schedules is just too fine-grained for being part of the Wikivoyage guide area. Would you consider moving it to your "user area", like User:(WT-en) Daniel575/List of Egged lines? That would keep the information available, but also avoid setting a precedent for Wikivoyage (that we write and maintain bus company schedules, which is just too big a burden)? --(WT-en) Evan 22:18, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep (on user page?) until step 2 of the nomination procedure (i.e. preparatory work) is completed, then delete. We can't afford to waste a well-meant and useful wikivoyager's work. Following Jpatokal's comments above and mine on the article's talk page, I think the list should be merged into the corresponding city or region articles when appropriate, whereas the general part should be (actually, it has been) put into the country article. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 22:54, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • OK, let's move it. Daniel, sorry this hurt your feelings, but we really do have policies and guidelines about what sorts of things we have articles about. We are not WikiPedia. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks also for making us aware that this information simply doesn't exist in a coherent form elsewhere. Anyhow, I suppose the correct place to put this information, which is to say the place where travellers would be looking for this information is in the Get in sections of all of the destination articles in Israel. -- (WT-en) Mark 08:15, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Agree with Mark and others above. This is valuable information, but it's most useful to the traveler if it's put (selectively, of course) in each destination's "Get in" and/or "Get around" sections. For example, if I want to know how to get to Petach Tikva, I'm going to look at Petach Tikva#Get in where it should tell me that Egged bus 423 (express) from Jerusalem CBS, 642 or 921 (regular) from Tel Aviv CBS, or 627 (regular) from Zoran will get me there. Granted, that will probably make it more work to maintain than keeping it in a single article, but that's our goal here: to do the hard work so others don't have to. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:16, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep We have space and the information is probably useful. By all means put some stuff in Get in/Get out sections of other articles, but link here for details. I'd vote for delete only if someone who knows Isreal well says there's another reasonable way to provide this info. (WT-en) Pashley 23:21, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
So what happened here? As far as I remember, the article being voted for deletion was List of Egged lines, which still exists as a redirect. Even if the "bus travel" article stays, the redirect is unnecessary. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:20, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
Indeed, as you can see, I have changed the article in such a way that it should now be fully permissible. The redirects (both 'List of Egged lines' and 'List of Israeli bus lines') can be deleted. The article is now on its way to become a full guide to how to deal with the Israeli bus system (which is basically the only realistic mode of transportation here). --User:(WT-en) Daniel575 30 May 2006
  • It looks like there is somewhat of a consensus to keep this article. I'm not sure I agree in this case since bus routes have proven impossible to maintain in the past, but since several people have spoken out in favor of keeping this can we resolve this VFD? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:19, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Is there a consensus to keep it? My reading of discussion above is that only a couple of people (the contributor who wrote it and me) wanted to keep it, and everyone else said delete. I think keeping it is the right decision, but I don't think there's a consensus on that, or at least not yet. (WT-en) Pashley 06:00, 3 June 2006 (EDT)
      • I guess the consensus is not to get rid of it for now. It doesn't seem entirely fair to the article's author to debate this endlessly, so perhaps we can remove the vfd and put a note on the article's talk page that the content should be re-worked into the relevant geographic articles? That would solve the problem of having good info that's currently in the wrong place. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:42, 3 June 2006 (EDT)
        • Ryan's solution makes sense to me. As an example of what the residual article might look like, check out Eurail and Inter Rail. The present article could become useful if the individual routes were moved to the destinations and general system information remained here. Remember that our general philosophy is one of trying to improve subpar articles rather than deleting them. That said, this article is subpar, and it needs improvement. Let's keep it for now and move on, but check back occasionally to see if improvement occurs. (Hm -- should we start putting some articles in "provisional" or "probationary" status? Not sure I want to go there ...) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:09, 3 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete - I Google-image-d this, and found it'd been used on a Wikipedia page, but has since been deleted. There's about a 99% chance it was a copyvio. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:59, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete GFDL from German Wikipedia —(WT-en) Ravikiran 05:48, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. My luck ran out on this. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:50, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. It turns out to be PD from the Dutch Wikipedia — (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:45, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Looks like a clear keep to me, unless there's evidence that the WikiDutch image is also inappropriately obtained. I couldn't find any such evidence from a cursory search. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:22, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Can we give a day or two before keeping this. I somehow found this image goes further than Dutch Wikipedia, but I've forgotten the the address for the page I originally found it on. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 15:09, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)


  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Starting in May, this user has begun uploading images and stamping them with a license which means "I made this and I release it into the Public Domain." However, a number of the images are found on other websites (see User talk:(WT-en) Shalom Alechem), and given past unresponsiveness to inquires, I think we have to assume the user is again misunderstanding copyright. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:41, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not a real place. There is a Prince Albert in Saskatchewan, there is a Prince Edward Island that the geopolitically clueless sometimes call by the wrong name, and apparently 19th-century explorers referred to an uninhabited rock in the Arctic Ocean by that name but neglected to pass it on to modern cartographers. But I can find no real place by this name in this century. And lest you wonder if the original author knows of such a place, it was created without any content (except the allegation that it's a town in Canada) by the same random-article generator who gave us Red and Y. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:58, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This template was never used in articles, and the new Template:Quickbar offers more flexibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:45, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This template was never used in articles, and the new Template:Quickbar offers more flexibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:48, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This template was never used in articles, and the new Template:Quickbar offers more flexibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:48, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This template was never used in articles, and the new Template:Quickbar offers more flexibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:48, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This template was never used in articles, and the new Template:Quickbar offers more flexibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:48, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This template was never used in articles, and the new Template:Quickbar offers more flexibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:48, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I am the author and added a link to Wikimedia Commons and information about me as the author, but please tell me if this is enough? (WT-en) PiotrK 09:47, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep. The source on Wikimedia says that it is released under cc-by-sa 2.5. I don't think we need to track down to the root for every image that turns up here. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:42, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep. The sense of PiotrK's intentions is clear enough, although it would be nice to massage the language to meet local standards eventually. Nice photo, btw. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill, posting from 128.165.144.60 14:40, 9 June 2006 (EDT) (can't login from this machine).
  • Keep. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:43, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Image "from commons" but no specified source. An energetic user could research this: there's about a 30% chance it will be CC-bySA. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A small body of water, not a valid article topic. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:28, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. "is a park located in new york." Not a destination. Another stub created by the random-empty-article generator. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:43, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, because there is no license information. The site the image was taken from is a commercial site, so I'm inclined to believe that the copyright isn't compatible with our copyleft. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:50, 26 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete unless uploader fixes this before the vote waiting period expires. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:21, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • If no answere from the owner, delete it. I'll probably have it substituted by then. (WT-en) Mattalves 10:23, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not an article I jumped the gun on creating this a while ago. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 11:12, 28 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I'll take care of it, and things like this are suggesting a minor deletion-policy change; modification to appropriate talk page coming. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 11 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete unless uploader can clarify image. "Picture from the museum web site" is not adequate to establish PD. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:21, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. "You are free to use any picture from this site as long as this reference is cited". Does that count as compatible with CC-bySA? -- (WT-en) Colin 00:25, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Don't know. It is an approximate English translation of that license. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:18, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep: I think the language is clear enough to be compatible with cc-by-sa. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 10:20, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Totally agree with Ravikiran. (WT-en) Mattalves 10:25, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Can't we keep this one as long as we express to users the requirement? - Sapphire
  • I'd say it's compatible. Keep. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:13, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:31, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:34, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:38, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:41, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:46, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:51, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 22:59, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 23:20, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 23:24, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 23:26, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 00:16, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 00:18, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 00:22, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 00:26, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 00:32, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 00:35, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 19:35, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 19:37, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 19:39, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 19:41, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Deletion on PL

edit
Language versions have their own rules and procedures for deletion. I suggest we get in touch with (WT-en) JanSlupski, who is the go-between there. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:08, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
By the way, he has also uploaded it to pt:! We're voting it there now too. 200.130.8.1 17:29, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
So does anything have to be done here or not? It would be nice to get this off the books. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 11 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage shared (WT-en) Hypatia 03:22, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Moved to Wikivoyage Shared. (WT-en) Hypatia 03:26, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:49, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

I think this is a place to eat in Ho Chi Minh City. Info needs to be moved there and this page deleted.

Solid, well-formatted content, but unfortunately it's in the wrong place — the theaters should be distributed into the appropriate districts, with the important ones highlighted from the main page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:16, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 00:18, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Leave it while the districts are updated. Since São Paulo is a pretty huge city, it takes quite a while to put up a decent guide, so it would definitely help having it there for a while. (WT-en) Mattalves 10:19, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • This one has been up here for a while with no action - unless anyone is opposed let's just copy the info into Sao Paulo so that this article can be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 09:41, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
    • I've copied it to the root article (with a plea for people to redistribute content to district articles). Any reason not to close this out? Going once, going twice ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:13, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Not an article. Ad for some kind of on-line travel service. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:43, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

Apparently an article about a prominent family in the city of Nellore, India. Not the kind of article Wikivoyage is looking for. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:46, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete. Body of water, not a destination. --(WT-en) SHC 19:19, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is the common name for the region, and the lake is a destination unto itself. The destination is comparable to a National Park including a variety of activities and things to see that exceed some many actual National Parks. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:30, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Agree with Colin - Mono Lake is the name commonly used for the region that includes the lake, located near Yosemite's east entrance. It's a very common recreation area for Californians, similar to Lake Tahoe. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:32, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Clarification make sense, and expanding of the article into an outline helps. Consider this an about face. Keep. (WT-en) SHC 19:47, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Large bodies of water can be travel destinations. I never did like the fact we could not do articles on bodies of water. There are some that would be an exception and not require a article due to being too large or too small, but I believe most fall in the same category as "Park articles". -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:25, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Anyone mind if we end this one early and nix the vfd? I'm the originator of the vfd and I was unware that Mono Lake referred to the region rather than the body of water alone. As someone who sometimes plans trips to specific rivers and lakes, I think (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel)'s suggestion to reconsider the concensus on bodies of water is valuable for discussion. As always, we should avoid the extremes: an article on the Pacific Ocean would be as useless as an article about the pond down the street. (WT-en) SHC 18:02, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
    • I think the consensus on this is pretty clear (and I agree with it, despite not having chimed in above). I'll archive this tomorrow (the 10-day mark) and copy the discussion to the appropriate talk page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:05, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
    • There seems to be a consensus to keep, so I don't think anyone will complain if this is kept - it would be good to just change the policy to allow ending a VFD early if there is a consensus to keep, but that's a discussion for another place. As to bodies of water, Project:Bodies of water is pretty clear that a body of water that is a region is OK - the policy is there (I think) to prevent things like a "Lake Erie" article, which really isn't of any benefit to travelers. Project:Bodies of water is the appropriate place for that discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:09, 16 June 2006 (EDT)


  • Delete. Maybe it was possible to sleep at its feet once upon a time, but it's been gone for over 2250 years now. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:18, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 14:55, 14 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. An attraction, not a destination, and since it's not even a famous attraction, it's not appropriate for redirecting to the destination. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:44, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete -- (WT-en) Jonboy 15:18, 14 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Merge into Bavarian cuisine and delete. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:49, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • I think this one came up before and it was kept-- is there anything in the archive or on the article talk page about how it worked out? I guess the question is "is beer cuisine"? (WT-en) Majnoona 21:33, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Hi Maj, Yeah the discussion was not really worked out on Talk:Bavarian Beer. The closest we got to a solution was to wait and see what (WT-en) Flip666 came up with. However, since Flip666 hasn't been around for a couple of months I'm unsure anyone else really wants to contribute to the article as is. I would, but the only thing that I can attest to about Bavarian beer is that Augustiner is the best and it has a higher content than most other German and American beers. Plus, I think merging the article with Bavarian cuisine makes a bit more sense, myself, and I think it also helps with coming up with a consensus regarding starting food,beer and/or wine subarticles. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:39, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, for the reasons discussed on Talk:Bavarian beer. I don't think we need to "test" every page on VfD. --(WT-en) Evan 16:54, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I would suggest that it only makes sense to keep the Bavarian Beer site if someone significantly contributes. I will write on the talk page of Flip666 and let's see if Philip is bringing up some news. It would be interesting to have but at the moment it could easily fit in the Bavarian cusine section. Let's give Philip a month and until then take a wait and see approach. (WT-en) Jan 08:00, 6 June 2006
  • How about just redirecting to Bavarian cuisine? That article even seems a bit of a slippery slope, but having an unfinished cuisine article and an unfinished beer article feels very slippery. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:54, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
    • There doesn't seem to be a consensus to keep or to delete. The content seems to have been copied into Bavarian cuisine, so I don't think we still need both articles. Anyone else have an opinion? -- (WT-en) Ryan 09:41, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
      • Delete, per the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, and the fact that the content has indeed consolidated into a better (if still slippery) article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:02, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - content should be moved to Cuzco and this article deleted. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 10:42, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
    • or if we are going with this method for sidebars, we need to add a sidebar listing page so these are not orphaned. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 10:47, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This seems to be a valid way to include important information in multiple articles. I agree though that some policy should probably be created, and that this sort of thing should be used sparingly. Perhaps discuss at Project:Information boxes? -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:47, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Policy discussion launched at Project:Information boxes#Shared infoboxes. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:40, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. Not an article. This is the kind of thing that sandboxes/graffiti walls are created for, and once something like this makes it into an actual article as an infobox, there's no longer a need for it as a stand-alone. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:04, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Bill, I am not sure I understand you. Have you had a look at Cuzco#See? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:27, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
      • Hmmm. That's ugly, isn't it? I still think this isn't an article, but yes, a more graceful way of dealing with the content needs to be found. Infobox rather than sidebar, maybe? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:34, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
  • I suggest we keep this and discuss the suitability, structure, layout and aesthetics on the policy page. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:51, 17 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I suspect it to be a copyvio, however, I only have circumstantial evidence, because every other image uploaded by User:(WT-en) Aduvauchelle (above) has been discovered to be a copyvio. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 22:00, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
  • The filename on this one suggests that it may actually have been taken by the uploader. But it's not particularly illustrative from a travel perspective, so delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:03, 8 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Actually, it's quite a nice photo, and I'd be willing to keep it if it did link to an actual destination. Suggest just a little research before it's deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Insufficient scope for a travel topic, and a thinly disguised plug for an extguide. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:28, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

  • I don't think there is a place by that name. Closest I could find is Acadia, a region which would probably not fit into our geographical hierarchy. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 16:54, 8 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused since 2004 and apparently meant to do what {{isIn}} does. Creation comment was "a candidate for deletion if it doesn't work out". -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused since 2004 and apparently meant to do what {{isIn}} does. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused since 2004 and apparently meant to do what {{isIn}} does. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused since 2004, and apparently also an attempt at using templates for navigation. Comment within the template notes that it is an experiment. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused since 2005, looks like an attempt to create a navigational hierarchy for Ontario. isIn has become the preferred way to do this. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Another template attempting to provide navigation, which is handled by {{isIn}}. Unused since 2004. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:55, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Old district, content now integrated in the new district Berlin/Pankow (WT-en) Jan 03:56, 06 June 2006
    • I'll go ahead and delete the other two obsolete Berlin districts, but there's a lot of good stuff in this article. Is it so obvious that a re-formatted Berlin should not have Prenzlauer Berg as a stand-alone district? I'd be inclined to keep this one and slightly rework the districting, unless there's a clear reason not to. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Superseded by the {{outline}} template. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:09, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Superseded by the {{usable}} template. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:09, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Superseded by the {{guide}} template. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:09, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Superseded by the {{star}} template. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:09, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Delete, TVerBeek discovered it to be a copyvio. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:03, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

  • A search on Google for this place returns Iran on Wikivoyage as the only known result and the article tells me that it is a bridge, not a valid destination. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 15:08, 14 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 12:49, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

.wav files

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2006&oldid=1878606"