Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2009

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in June 2009. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/May 2009 or Project:Votes for deletion/July 2009 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Delete - Spam page. Could one of the honorable admins please speedily delete the page (WT-en) jan 05:16, 5 June 2009 (EDT)


delete as soon as possible -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 09:12, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

delete - --(WT-en) Rein N. 09:16, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

It's not a city anymore and this city is not used in any travel books (I don't even know that the city has anything to offer). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:28, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedy redirected to Tsuyama. The Japanese government merged it there; no reason why we can't do the same. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I realize that we don't really have a policy on this, and a generally very permissive on what people put up on their userspace, but this just looks like a totally irrelevant google ranking ploy, so I'm gonna try and put this up for deletion anyway. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:13, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, can I draw up the copyright violation card instead then? It very explicitly states "Copyright ©2002-2009 Para Tech Coating UK Limited. All rights reserved." down at the bottom of the page. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:24, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
Speedy delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:43, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'm essentially just repeating that I don't think the original policy discussion at the link Peter highlights above went as far as to have consensus to permit content that could never in any interpretation or the widest possible scope ever ever contribute to building a successful travel guide. Since I don't see this consensus was ever reached, I think we should rely on our Goals and Non-Goals to guide us here. If the page doesn't benefit the development of a travel guide, in the widest possible sense, it should be deleted according to non-goal 4 and 6. Even if we accept that the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:User_page_help#Touting_on_Userpages is valid policy, and does apply to this page, it should still be deleted, as the recommendation there that contact with the user is attempted has been tried in this case, and failed. --(WT-en) Inas 21:25, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
I disagree, I think the discussion pretty clearly held up the long-standing practice that we should not censor userspace, with a few exceptions noted in the discussion. In particular, no one objected to Ravikiran's guidelines, and despite being pretty much the only dissenter, I agreed to them as well. In any rate, if there is disagreement about what our policy is, I think we should hash that out in discussion, try to reach a consensus, and this time actually write it into policy (I sure wish I had done that before...), rather than set precedents via vfds. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:43, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
Although I of course agree we should not venture too far down the discussion path here. I must say I agree with the consensus at Wikivoyage_talk:User_page_help#Touting_on_Userpages, and think this article is a clear candidate for deletion following those guideliness. Personally I don't really see the need to revisit that discussion. The consensus described there, simply is:
* Okay if travel related.
* Okay if it will not harm Wikivoyage's reputation or image
I see these guidelines as well thought out and reasonable. However, nowhere can I see was the consensus ever reached to not touch user pages which are completely outside of any possible scope for a travel guide. This is an article about parylene coating. It is completely inconsistent with our goals, and assuming the previous consensus is valid policy, it is completely inconsistent with that as well. --(WT-en) Inas 22:48, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep but blank the page since it has nothing to do with travel and is a copyright violation. It would be quite OK for the user to link to the company either on his personal page or the talk page, and the note we leave after blanking the page should say that. However, the current text does not belong here for two reasons. It has nothing to do with travel and it is a copyright violation. In my view, either would be adequate grounds for removing the text. However, I see no grounds at all for deleting the page. (WT-en) Pashley 01:34, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Just to be clear, you would like to leave this guy a note, to tell him we have blanked his page (but not deleted it), because it was about some technology to coat computer chips with some sort of plastic, and not about travel. But you would like the note to say that he is welcome to set up a home page here, on wikivoyage, a travel site, making free travel guides, with links to another site telling people how to coat computer chips with plastic? Really? Sometimes I think in a focus on openness we lose track of our goals. Who will volunteer to write the Project:Welcome, Google rank spammer page. --(WT-en) Inas 05:09, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Actually, that page sounds potentially fun. But I think the main thing is to clearly draw lines to reassure contributors that they do have control over their userspace, if nothing else. Personally, I'd draw the line between anyone who has made non-spam edits and exclusive spammers, but that's a policy change and beyond the scope of the vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:31, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Good point, and this bozo's made only one edit ever. I'd support that policy change. (WT-en) Pashley 21:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Entry in Dutch, not English. --(WT-en) Rein N. 12:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Keep the article, remove Dutch text. It seems to be a real place wikipedia Someone who knows the area can add English text or, if the place is too small & unimportant, make it a redirect to a region article. (WT-en) Pashley 21:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Redirect to Breda, if someone wants to keep it, because Prinsenbeek is added to the city of Breda since 1997. On wikipedia only en and nl have an article on it --(WT-en) Rein N. 23:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Redirected. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:47, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Subject of photo is almost certainly copyrighted, but I don't understand the area of copyright law very well pertaining to partial photographs of copyrighted materials. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:28, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Delete. Part or all, it's faithful reproduction and thus a copyvio. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
Delete. I think it's pretty clearly a copyvio too. (WT-en) Texugo 01:23, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
Deleted after two weeks. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:48, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Delete or blank page. In the begining of the article it is stated that the content is copyrighted. Seems to be no copyvio tough. (WT-en) ViMy 18:55, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Delete. Text is identical to , except that the user here has replaced the original copyright notice with one of his own! The "all rights reserved" is a nice touch. Given that, I'm more than a little suspicious about Image:EntrancetoHotSprings.JPG‎ as well. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:57, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
Done. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:47, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

No longer useful, just info that should be in/moved to Beijing article.(WT-en) AHeneen 14:42, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Delete text, and redirect to Bejing. The article doesn't appear that well developed to start with, and we should leave Wikipedia to write the history books. --(WT-en) Inas 17:30, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
Done. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:47, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

This district no longer exists, so I see no reason for it to stay here. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:00, 24 May 2009 (EDT).

  • Redirect to Edmonton/South, just like any other routine merge. A number of things still link there, not least of which is the Edmonton article itself. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:10, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to maintain attribution history. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:00, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect, obviously, although I wonder why it's not an issue that this article came to no longer exist with no prior discussion — even this guy waited longer. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:52, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
Merging some of the more empty district articles (generally) was suggested by (WT-en) LtPowers and this specific merge was suggested by (WT-en) PerryPlanet and implemented (albeit rapidly) by (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast so it's not like there has been no community input. I've made more drastic districting changes to the bare districts of other cities without anyone so much as noticing. (WT-en) Texugo 00:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

This is a townsquare in Ghent, Belgium. I have added the relevant information into Ghent's site, so there is no reason to keep this. Otherwise, we might as well start creating new pages for streets, houses, rooms, etc. (WT-en) Sougato 10:25, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Three images

edit

These images have been moved from en: to shared: and are now available for all language versions under their original file names. They do not need to be stored in two different project areas. (WT-en) Riggwelter 12:21, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

    • Speedied -- duplicates like this can be nuked instantly as long as the name is the same on Shared (or, if different, you've fixed all links). (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:58, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted, linkspam. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 06:17, 2 June 2009 (EDT)


  • delete very OT, again. Like 'Oil Painting - Creating a Masterpiece" above -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 10:02, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
  • delete Just an adverstisement for a hotel in Phuket (WT-en) jan 07:16, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Speedy deleted, --(WT-en) inas 07:29, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

delete --Russian spammer? ---- --(WT-en) Rein N. 10:40, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Delete' - Spammer User:(WT-en) Golfclub doesn't get the message. -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 10:27, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Body of water and presumably not an article. Should be merged and redirected somewhere... but where? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:53, 26 February 2009 (EST)

  • It will need to be a disambiguation page, per Wikipedia:Rio Negro. There are at least three bodies of water with that name in South America alone, plus actual communities in Brazil and in Guatemala. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:08, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Hold We need to root out a new consensus on this, see North sea discussion --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. Between the miscapitalization and the disamb issue, there's no reason to keep this one around until we have an actual disamb page. Different set of issues than what's in the North Sea situation. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:22, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 04:53, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:55, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete - While I am all in favour of publicising the various emergency telephone numbers in various countries, the best place to do this is in the specific Stay safe sections of individual destination articles. I do not believe we need a single page that is a telephone directory for all the emergency services in the world. It is not likely you are going to need to call them all at one time. You might need to know the national emergency number(s) for all the emergency service in one country or most likely the local numbers and physical addresses for each emergency service for a destination. That means list in each destination article, not on a common page. Is there any policy about this topic? -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:28, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:05, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

A small attraction which could easily be covered in the Get out section of Karakorin.

  • Merge and delete - (WT-en) Texugo 06:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
  • Merege and Redirect. No real overhead is a redirect is there? If it is not promotion, or spam? --(WT-en) Inas 20:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I don't see the point in allowing redirects for misspelled or improperly capitalized titles, unless the title is frequently misspelled. (WT-en) Texugo 07:51, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Neither do I. Which part do you consider misspelled or improperly capitalised? A quick google search on Bilge Khaan certainly reveals a fair variation in spelling. --(WT-en) inas 21:07, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge & redirect. There is no reason to delete redirects (that aren't spam), and it's possible that they could positively affect our SEO. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:49, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: merged. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

An isolated ruin with no facilities.

Outcome: merged. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:32, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

A town in the borough of Tameside, which currently redirects to Manchester. Created by an anonymous user probably to promote the apartment company listed in the Sleep section, and I can't get the link they left to load.

Per Project:Bodies of water. There's no content here that doesn't also belong in Kitakyushu or Shimonoseki (and their respective prefecture articles). (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:43, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Turn into to disambig pointing to the appropriate places. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:32, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Result: turned into disambiguation page. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:20, 11 June 2009 (EDT)


According to Wikipedia , Y (Alaska) is just the name of a census area, so it's not a real city. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 12:23, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

As we define "city", it might be. CDPs are usually populated places that are not officially incorporated but have a legitimate name. It may very well be the best name for that particular community. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:52, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
I think this is a time where we should look to the old faithful, Can you sleep there, for guidance. We don't have an article for every crossroads on the map applies even where there are few roads, and where they may not even cross. --(WT-en) inas 00:23, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
I agree. Wikipedia says, though, "Many residents are self-employed in a variety of small businesses, including lodging, guiding and charter services." That's indicative that an article could probably be written. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:33, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Sounds convincing. I guess Keep. --(WT-en) inas 20:39, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Probably shouldn't have been an article to start with, since it appears to have been a private enterprise. Recent edits also say that it's been closed, which this news article supports. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:19, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete -- Redirect to Main Page. Correctly translated from Dutch, but do we need it? -- --(WT-en) Rein N. 06:42, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I don't think we do. Why does :en get these occasional bits of inexplicable Dutch, anyhow? - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:56, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. We already have separate articles for Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, so there's no one article that this could be redirected to. I can't fathom why someone would search for that exact term rather than the individual city names, regardless. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:03, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep as a redirect or perhaps as a region page. The creator obviously thought these two places formed a bigger region together. Perhaps redirect to the smallest region page where these two places are mentioned. Perhaps we need a bit of policy guidance for editors that says that articles named one place and another place are regions, so they need to write separate articles about each place also. Maybe we need a {{Split}} warning too. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Gulf Coast (Alabama), where both cities are already listed. No sense in making a new subregion for it, seeing as how the whole state is in need of a rethink in terms of subregions, which are currently listed under a barely-implemented and overly numerous county scheme. (WT-en) Texugo 02:02, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Speedy redirected to Gulf_Coast_(Alabama)#Cities. Hope I wasn't being too presumptuous in doing so, but it seems the obvious (and simplest) course per Project:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:57, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

I've got your back... (WT-en) Texugo 02:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Can't find a place called this, certainly not in the Peloponnese. Hoax or just a really offbeat spelling? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:03, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Redirect, Hogwarts.. --(WT-en) inas 01:02, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
I sense an April Fool's destination for 2010 coming on here... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
Google gave me this link : . Another Greek place with more than one name during its history. --(WT-en) Rein N. 03:32, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
A-ha! Moved to current name, I think we can close this VFD. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:13, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

No model release from either of these identifiable fellows. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:35, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

My experiment, now redundant because India has a much better map. Not linked anywhere except my user page; putting it here just to check if anyone else is using it. Will delete it myself if no one objects. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:43, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 09:08, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

A whole map just to show how to get to a hostel? No. Speedied as copyright violation from . Listed here for documentation. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:19, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. Appears to be a non-article, with no lodging. Perhaps the content could be moved to a Sumbawa article? If so, a redirect would be appropriate. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:16, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's a multi-day climb and there is accommodation on the slopes, and there's plenty of precedent for Indonesian mountains (Mount Bromo, Mount Rinjani, etc). (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

delete - not a travel topic. --(WT-en) Rein N. 08:33, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Speedied - --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:03, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2009&oldid=4924608"