Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2008

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in March 2008. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/February 2008 or Project:Votes for deletion/April 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

only linked to from Talk:Iran

edit
  • Delete(re the above images: Apparently the copyright owner released them for use in wikipedia. Wikivoyage is definitely not wikipedia. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 00:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Created by page creation troll. Please check Special:Contributions/72.87.57.201 & Special:Contributions/(WT-en) KevinNSaisi and delete the lot - I'm not going to individually list any more here. Note that some have been created/VFD'd/deleted before. ~ 203.144.143.4 12:17, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Jan.28th: Many have since been speedy deleted, but more have now been created. This list may be incomplete:

Ridgedale
Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 00:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Woodstock (New Hampshire)
Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 00:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Franklin (New Hampshire)
Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 00:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Acton
Outcome: Already Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 00:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Kennebec and Moose River Valleys
Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 00:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I've removed pages that were speedy deleted. In general pages which are candidate for speedy deletion probably don't need to be listed here unless a few hours go by without an admin removing them. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:24, 27 January 2008 (EST)
This one seems to be a valid article, it was created in 2006, has a lot of content and is linked to from Maine as part of the hierarchy. Also does not have a vfd tag. I'm deleting and archiving the rest; this one I'll keep. Should anyone have a problem with the outcome, re-vfd it with a vfd tag on the actual article --(WT-en) Nick 00:43, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Colby (Wisconsin) - Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 00:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Pluto - Already Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 00:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

  • Merge and Redirect. There's not that much to Manoa, not enough to justify it's own guide. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Merged and Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 03:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Only a redirect, but a pointless one unless we want to have many similar ones for every city in the states, i.e. Sewickley,pa, Sewickley, Pa, Sewickley, PA, Sewickley, Pennsylvania, etc.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Nominated more to answer the following question than anything: Do we intend to start disambiguation and redirection service for all abbreviations? A redirect for NYC is understandable, but PA can be a number of things: the US state of Pennsylvania, the state of Paraná in Brazil, Palo Alto in California, probably a lot more.

Globally commonly used abbreviations (USA, UK, NYC, UAE) should definately have redirects, but I don't think we should do it down to this level. KZN is used for KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, but would any traveller to South Africa really ever search for that? How many people outside the USA really knows what the state abbreviations are? I sure don't. Maybe create a single dictionary article? --(WT-en) Nick 23:54, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 03:58, 10 March 2008 (EDT)


Cleanup of the No license vfd avalanche

edit

The following are not in the order they appeared on the original vfd. Most of these were listed en masses as No license or Incorrect license, but Deleted action have been taken on some of them for copyright violations, people in photo or any other reason that does not fit wikivoyage image policy. They have been moved here in order to reduce the total mess on Project:Votes for deletion so that we can actually see what is left to clean up there.

Outcome on all is : Deleted

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 21:19, 30 January 2008 (EST)

A {{vfd}} tag was added 17 August 2007 but as no VFD/archive pages link to it I presume it was never listed here. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:29, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Wait. This was part of a restructure om Manchester. I have left a message on Talk:Manchester and suggest we wait another 14 days for feedback --(WT-en) Nick 05:22, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, enough time has elapsed for anyone working on Manchester to merge any info that is still required. --(WT-en) Nick 04:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A {{vfd}} tag was added 17 August 2007 but as no VFD/archive pages link to it I presume it was never listed here. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:29, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Wait. This was part of a restructure om Manchester. I have left a message on Talk:Manchester and suggest we wait another 14 days for feedback --(WT-en) Nick 05:23, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, enough time has elapsed for anyone working on Manchester to merge any info that is still required. --(WT-en) Nick 04:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

All orphan/dead-end pages created by the same regular page-creation troll; Coudersport content was copyvio from maps.google.com ~ 203.144.143.4 24 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, valid article with eat/drink/sleep info. Still an orphan due to it's region not existing, but that might change at a later stage --(WT-en) Nick 04:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Templated and Kept, linked to from Gary --(WT-en) Nick 04:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted, empty orphaned page --(WT-en) Nick 04:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted, empty orphaned page --(WT-en) Nick 04:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Non travel related. Conflicts with image policy (People in photos). Probable copyright violation --(WT-en) Nick 23:59, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Already Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:45, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Recognizeable college students in the photo. (WT-en) Texugo 05:50, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Already Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Stockholm districts

edit

See Talk:Stockholm#Districts? - looks like there shouldn't be any district articles for Stockholm, in which case these should be deleted; and if so, all the district descriptions at Stockholm#Districts (only two of which link to the above) should be de-wiki-linked. ~ 203.144.143.4 00:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Redirect to Stockholm. These articles (based on Stockholm Municipality administrative divisions) have been left untouched for quite some time, and they don't seem to contain any meaningful information not included in the Stockholm article, with the possible exception of two bars and two pizzerias in suburban Spånga, a place that is far off the beaten track for any normal Stockholm tourist. Redirecting might be useful to avoid recreation. (WT-en) Alarm 18:51, 28 January 2008 (EST)
I think Norrmalm and Östermalm should redirect to Stockholm, but that Stockholm/Norrmalm and Stockholm/Östermalm etc should be deleted. ~ 203.144.143.4 23:51, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Spånga is very close to Lunda Industria (Industrial estate) which includes the popular Ibis buisness hotel (http://www.ibishotel.se/hotel_start.asp?hotellid=11339) and as such this a usefull article to avoid having to travel into stockholm city center to find food and drink.

Outcome: Redirected as per (WT-en) Alarm's suggestion. He seems to be the main contributor to Stockholm article and should know best --(WT-en) Nick 05:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

CC-by-SA-3.0

edit

These images are tagged {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and conflict with the following policies:

  1. Wikivoyage:Copyleft (up until 23 January 2008, when images were effectively excluded from the policy without prior notice or discussion )
  2. Project:Image policy
  3. Project:How to re-use Wikivoyage guides

Both are linked to from New Orleans/Uptown. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

  • The two above are my images; I saw no indication when I uploaded them that cc-by-sa-3.0 was not an acceptable license here. I have relicensed both as cc-by-sa-all. I hope this takes care of the problem? If a license is not acceptable for Wikivoyage, I suggest that be made more clear in the upload form. Thanks, -- (WT-en) Infrogmation 11:42, 1 February 2008 (EST)

see also: #Image:800px-NYCT O7 HEV.jpg - VFD'd 26 January 2008

Outcome: Kept - Both have been relicensed by contributor as cc-by-sa-1.0 so any possible objections to them are no longer valid --(WT-en) Nick 05:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A copyvio. ~ 58.8.10.215 06:00, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, copyvio from --(WT-en) Nick 13:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 58.8.3.194 19:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, appears on numerous sites on the internet and may be a copyvio from any of them. WT really should have fresh and new photos rather then just copies of what everyone else has. --(WT-en) Nick 15:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, small and not used anywhere. Might as well delete rather than spend the time to resolve any possible license issues --(WT-en) Nick 15:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

CC-by-SA-2.5

edit
  • Keep, according to source, this is available under cc-by-sa 1.0. WT updated to reflect correct license info as per WP. --(WT-en) Nick 07:52, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Nick 06:57, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete - Additional license requests on commons source (quote source close to photo), not enforceable, but we licensing is already complex and we don't need additional complications like that. --(WT-en) Nick 07:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 06:57, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete - Additional license requests on commons source (quote source close to photo), not enforceable, but we licensing is already complex and we don't need additional complications like that. --(WT-en) Nick 07:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 06:57, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep I do not think images that are not linked anywhere should be deleted, this gives choices to future editors and if moved to shared, gives a variety of choices to different languages. Since memory is no longer an issue, I suggest that we keep them if properly licensed. (WT-en) 2old 11:09, 15 February 2008 (EST)
By the way, images that are being used, do not always reflect that on the image page. It may show that the image is not linked to any page, but may be in the case of galleries and other situations. An archive of images will prove useful in the future! (WT-en) 2old 12:23, 16 February 2008 (EST)
  • Delete this one - copyvio from [] --(WT-en) Nick 02:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 06:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

not VFD'd - has 3 tags: {{GFDL}} + {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} + {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}

Outcome: Kept, multiple license tags is totally legal and not an issue at all. Select the one you like --(WT-en) Nick 07:09, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Tagged as a copyvio since 20 March 2007 & VFD'd separately

Outcome: Duplicate listing, dealt with in February, see Project:Votes_for_deletion/February_2008#Image:Picodaneblina.jpg --(WT-en) Nick 07:14, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Other images from the same contributor:-

PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio as above

PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio as above

PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio as above

PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio as above

PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio as above

PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio as above

Outcome: All kept, vfd submitter did not cite source of copyright violation on any of these and a diligent internet search did not reveal their usage anywhere else on the internet. If we allow deletion based on presumably a copyvio then we might as well delete all our images. If any of these are indeed copyvio's then they can be re vfd'd with source of infringement cited --(WT-en) Nick 07:20, 11 March 2008 (EDT)


No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, copyvio from --(WT-en) Nick 07:26, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio - uploaded with {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} tag but is a derivative of work from a CC-by-SA-2.0 source. ~ 203.144.143.4 04:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

What? why?

this map was taken off a site recommended by another user as open access (hence the map not being quite complete) so therefore there is no infringement of copyright and it is fully in line with wikivoyage's policy on images

(WT-en) Prof Jack 20:00, 4 February 2008 (EST)

This is a valid problem. I'm upgrading the license to cc-by-sa-2.0 and will leave a message for the contributor --(WT-en) Nick 07:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept, licensing has been updated to cc-by-sa-2.0 and it is now totally legal and does not constitute a copyvio anymore --(WT-en) Nick 07:51, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Completely redundant/bogus page. See Galiano Island and this cuckoo-edit. ~ 203.144.143.4 16:36, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 08:51, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

cc-by-sa-2.5 ~ 203.144.143.6 18:47, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, looks like this one was uploaded by the original photographer, which means that now it's available under CC-by-SA 1.0 and 2.5. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 05:06, 29 December 2007 (EST)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lauterbrunnen-valley.jpg says: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one. (my emphasis) - I only looked quickly but couldn't find anything additional here or here or here ~ 58.8.213.154 14:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Keep. If the photographer uploaded it here, then as Sapphire says, it is also licensed under our 1.0. From the history, it appears that he did. It is labeled "taken by Keith Halstead" and was uploaded by user HalsteadK.

This should have been obvious and the vfd either never entered or closed months ago. (WT-en) Pashley 08:22, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept, all uploaded images are automatically cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload. Dual licencing 1.0 and 2.5 is not a problem. --(WT-en) Nick 08:54, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

cc-by-sa-2.0 ~ 203.144.143.6 18:31, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Keep. These is no consensus on deleting images that comply with versions >1.0 of CC by-sa. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)
You might as well argue that there's no consensus on deleting images that conflict with Shared:Copyleft. Project:Image policy#Copyleft & Shared:Image_policy#Summary both state: licenses must include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License Version 1.0 ~ 61.7.183.208 03:48, 5 January 2008 (EST)
  • Delete According to Wikivoyage:Copyleft all contributions MUST be licensed cc-by-sa-1.0 (see the section on Compatible Licenses). The license description here makes no mention of any other license that may include 1.0. Finally, wts:Upload file explicitly says You must select a correct license for the image, or it will be deleted! Since the only correct license is cc-by-sa-1.0, and no other license is legally compatible with it, any image that does not explicitly select it must be deleted. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)
  • Strong keep As I stated below, we do use these images properly per their licensing requirements, since we provide image-specific licensing and attribution. Moreover, this licensing fulfills all the essential promises (attribution & share-alike) of our copyleft. Since the text of the copyleft does not match our practice (as is glaringly obvious given the fact that we provide a pulldown menu of all sorts of CC and other accepted licenses on the upload file page), we should update that text, which is quite outdated and ill-maintained. I've now updated the page to remove the most stark contradictions with how we manage files, but there may be more that needs work. In addition to being unnecessary, trying to force ourselves to only use CC-by-SA 1.0 licensed images would be a terrible idea, as it would drastically limit the images that we could use to more or less only files that have been uploaded by Wikivoyageers. It is a shame that in the early days of Wikivoyage we boxed ourselves in to an incompatibility trap, but there's no sense trying to make our incompatibility problem worse than it is already. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)

To improve readability and maintenance on this page, the rest of this discussion has been moved to the talk page at CC-by-SA discussion (A). Please continue reading there.

Outcome: Kept, all uploaded images are automatically cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload. Dual licencing 1.0 and 2.5 is not a problem. --(WT-en) Nick 08:57, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

cc-by-sa-3.0 ~ 203.144.143.6 18:59, 23 December 2007 (EST)

203.whatever appears to be right. We cannot accept images under CC-by-SA version numbers other than 1.0. In the short term, the solution may indeed be to (with regret) delete some images. In the longer term, we need to look for ways to fix the licensing mess, ideally move the wiki to 3.0. Discussion at Project:Copyleft#GFDL and Creative Commons (WT-en) Pashley 03:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Keep. These is no consensus on deleting images that comply with versions >1.0 of CC by-sa. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)
You might as well argue that there's no consensus on deleting images that conflict with Shared:Copyleft. Project:Image policy#Copyleft & Shared:Image_policy#Summary both state: licenses must include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License Version 1.0 ~ 61.7.183.208 03:54, 5 January 2008 (EST)
That's right, and it can be argued that the CC by-sa 2.0 license includes all of 1.0 and then some, in the same way that PD images also grant all the rights of CC by-sa 1.0. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:33, 5 January 2008 (EST)
  • Strong keep. 61 is right to point out that our practices don't align well with the text at Wikivoyage:Copyleft, but it would be a huge mistake to start deleting images licensed under later CC attribution and attribution-sharealike licenses. We have loads of such images and it would be a shame to delete them. More importantly though, they fulfill all our licensing needs without violating any of the essential promises of our copyleft. And since we specify licensing for individual images on Wikivoyage, we are using these images properly per their licensing requirements. I agree that we should try to allow CC 3.0 licensed text on our site—compatibility with Wikipedia would be a huge improvement—but that's a separate issue. Some revisions to the text of the copyleft article may be in order, though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:47, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • Keep. Discussion linked to above seems to be moving in the direction of changing our licensing. That would remove 204.whatever's objection. (WT-en) Pashley 08:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept, all uploaded images are automatically cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload. Dual licencing 1.0 and 2.5 is not a problem. --(WT-en) Nick 08:57, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. I really like the phrase "a great pampering moment for you," but this is a non-article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted.

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, Contributor accepted default cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload when image was upload. Image tagged as such --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, Contributor accepted default cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload when image was upload. Image tagged as such --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, Contributor accepted default cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload when image was upload. Image tagged as such --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, unused, not travel related, very probable copyvio --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, Contributor accepted default cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload when image was upload. Image tagged as such --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No licence ~ 203.144.143.4 14:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, Contributor accepted default cc-by-sa-1.0 as per Special:Upload when image was upload. Image tagged as such --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Flagged vfd, but not listed here. --(WT-en) Nick 16:12, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Delete, non article --(WT-en) Nick 16:12, 29 February 2008 (EST)
I've actually been here on several occasions! Now, I must admit, I've confused a few of these towns, but I know for sure I've been there and it along with Unkel and Königswinter could very well be worth guides, albeit, it would need to moved to Bad Honnef. It is the site of several interesting sights (i.e. wikipedia:Drachenfels (Siebengebirge). I, however, would suggest a redirect to Königswinter for the time being since Königswinter and Bad Honnef kinda blend and Königswinter is better known. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 20:17, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

A temple, content was copyvio --(WT-en) Nick 16:40, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Delete Marked copyright 2005. No license. (WT-en) 2old 14:11, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Another temple with copyvio content --(WT-en) Nick 16:42, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Body of water and copyvio from --(WT-en) Nick 18:10, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. The following was added to the talk page:
"This map appears in the "D-DAY LANDINGS AND THE BATTLE OF NORMANDY" published by Comite Departmental du Tourisme du Calvados, cdt@cg14.fr, tel. 02 31 27 90 30, www.calvados-tourisme.com.
The page with this map reads, "Copyright de Kerpel Day Associates - RC B342104833 - Tel. 02 33 79 09 09"
--(WT-en) Chrys 10:30, 2 March 2008 (EST)
-- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:20, 2 March 2008 (EST)
delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:28, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Does not seem to qualify as an article --(WT-en) Nick 13:48, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Delete. It's not even a ghost town really. --(WT-en) Colin 01:50, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

May have potential to be converted and renamed as a travel topic, but as it stands it I think it is only fit for deletion --(WT-en) Nick 13:59, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Does not seem to qualify as an article --(WT-en) Nick 14:18, 2 March 2008 (EST)

  • Keep. There's a building which on Google Earth appears to be a hotel. Wikimapia claims it is a hotel. At the very least, you can eat there since it's next to the Interstate, so I'd say keep. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio from --(WT-en) Nick 15:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Copyvio from --(WT-en) Nick 16:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)

delete (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 04:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2008&oldid=2003779"