Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2011

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← February 2011 Votes for deletion archives for March 2011 (current) April 2011 →

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. The image description page is an advertisement for a trekking company, something we typically discourage. A now-removed URL on the image description page shows up in the spam blacklist. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned map image with no indication of source, license, etc. We already have Image:Colombia regions map.png, so I can't see any reason why an unused, questionably-licensed map needs to be kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned map image. There is no indication provided that the original (commercial) map that this is based on can be re-used under a CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned map image with no indication of source, and it is too small to be of any usefulness anyhow. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:33, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. Uploaded to promote a tour guide service. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. This is an orphaned commercial image advertising a travel agency in India. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release, uploaded to promote a tour company. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable person with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable person with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 5 March 2011 (EST)

A village of 2,000 only 2 miles from Ifrane (despite what the article now says, every map I can find shows it to be 2 miles WNW of Ifrane). Doesn't seem to have it's own lodgings. Small enough that it doesn't even have a mention on Wikipedia.

This is a different Zaouia d'Ifrane. The proper name is Zaouiate Oued Ifrane, but nobody actually calls it that, but i guess i will change the title of the town to that since I am about to be deleted and i just started! I live in this village, I am a Peace Corps volunteer trying to promote eco-tourism to this village so please don't delete it! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 41.140.138.136 (talk • contribs)

I see. OK, so, a village of 500-1000 people? French Wikipedia has very little information and Yahoo Maps points to an unlabeled spot with no roads visible, and both refer to it as only Oued Ifrane. Does it have accommodations? restaurants? If there are things to see, don't you think it's better to describe them than to just say "you'll know when you get there"? (Who is going to decide to go to a place based on that kind of recommendation?) (WT-en) Texugo 11:05, 19 January 2011 (EST)
  • Hold, It has a Sleep section with a place to stay. Give the person a chance to make it worth keeping. Say a month? (negotiable) • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:35, 20 January 2011 (EST)
No problem with that. It's not the place I was actually vfd'ing, and has been subsequently renamed.(WT-en) Texugo 10:06, 20 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Zaouiate Oued Ifrane. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:43, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Purely advertising for the organization, not a travel guide at all. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:20, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Speedied - (WT-en) texugo 09:23, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:19, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:19, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Uploaded locally, violates the policy of photos of businesses.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:17, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Uploaded locally, violates the policy of photos of businesses.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:17, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. These are the same image. Both are orphaned, and at 29x19 they are far too small to ever be of any use. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned poster for a Dominican rap album. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. I'm not sure what this image is supposed to be, but it's orphaned and doesn't appear travel-related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:50, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image, apparently (based on the image page) uploaded as an advertisement for a travel agency. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to be some sort of album advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail (91x69) of a rusting car. I assume that this may have just been uploaded as a test? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. It's a scanned black & white photo uploaded as "PD-Self", which seems questionable. Without any further identification as to where this came from it's probably best to delete rather than risk a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a family dinner, recognizable people with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release. Appears to have been uploaded to promote a hostel, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:55, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

This claims to be an itinerary but it is not. It adds nothing that cannot be merged with the existing article on Block Island. (WT-en) Shep 13:23, 8 March 2011 (EST)

I agree. It should be merged; I doubt there could be a compelling argument advanced to keep the two articles separate. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 22:47, 9 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Block Island. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Not an itinerary. More a plug for the Courtyard Marriott. (WT-en) Shep 13:44, 8 March 2011 (EST)

I agree and vote for deletion. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 22:49, 9 March 2011 (EST)

Merge the information in Understand and Get Out into Lincoln (Rhode Island). (WT-en) –sumone10154 22:39, 10 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Lincoln (Rhode Island). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

same contributor as the two above. Adds nothing. (WT-en) Shep 14:04, 8 March 2011 (EST)

  • Merge or Delete if there is no new stuff to merge. (WT-en) texugo 20:29, 9 March 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. This isn't an itinerary, it's just a bunch of listings with slightly modified section headers. I find it unlikely that a visitor will stay at nine different hotels over the course of a weekend. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 20:57, 9 March 2011 (EST)
  • Merge into Providence. (WT-en) –sumone10154 22:35, 10 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Providence. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Ditto. (WT-en) Shep 14:08, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

I admit this user is putting a lot of work and some nice prose into this, and yes it does pass the sleep test, but... It is still a privately owned resort of no historical interest, really just an attraction with some cottages. How is this different from Xelha or any other privately owned resort that we delete, except that it's yoga instead of another tourist activity?

I thought of elaborating on the topic in Coimbatore but I took into consideration three factors: One, that it lies about 30 km from and well outside the boundaries of the nearest major town. Two, that a lot of people do visit this place - not just from Coimbatore but from various parts of India and the world. Three, that there are a lot of activities to do at the destination, a traveler could dedicate 2-3 days to this place. So adding all the information such as See & Do, Stay, Etiquette etc would just look too cumbersome in the Coimbatore page. BTW as the creator of the article, do I also get to vote or is my vote obvious? Thnx. (WT-en) Regstuff 06:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
You are of course welcome to comment here. I just want to hold this up against established policy and practice because I don't think it's a good fit. We have eliminated articles for other private resorts, despite them having a variety of activities or tourists who spend 2 or 3 days there. The info you have provided is well-written, but it is a great deal more detailed than we usually provide-- that's what the link to the official website is for. (WT-en) Texugo 06:29, 30 January 2011 (EST)
  • It seems odd to merge it into an article that's 35 km (22 miles) away, especially since the content that is here would overwhelm the Coimbatore article. It appears to be a destination in its own right to me. Is there an example of the level of detail that you deem too much for our site? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
I dunno, a map and a walk-around guide of the small complex with its 3 main buildings, a play-by-play of all the goings-on at all two temples plus detailed aesthetic descriptions of them (remember these are recent structures, not historically significant), the two temples dominate both See and Do... It seems a bit much to me. At any rate, the more important issue for me is that it is a privately-owned resort, as are Xcaret and Xelha and others that we have (rightfully, I think) deleted in the past, the only difference being that it is for relaxation and yoga instead of tourism and swimming with dolphins. Do we give it a pass just because it's yoga? just because it's 30km from the nearest article (Xel-ha is perhaps a bit further even from the article in which it is described). How do we justify giving this one an article? -- (WT-en) Texugo 21:05, 30 January 2011 (EST)
There is no policy demanding the deletion of privately-owned resorts, nor do I understand in the least why we would want such a policy. We have six star articles that are collectively, exclusively about a single privately-owned resort destination. I'm working on another article about a privately-owned resort now: Darien Lake.
I do understand your concerns about level of detail, and it probably could be pared down a bit. But I don't think a merge is the answer. It doesn't seem like people visit this resort as part of a trip to Coimbatore; they specifically take a trip to the resort. The fact that there's nothing else nearby is not the fault of the resort. It's not unlike a hotel and restaurant out in the middle of nowhere here in the U.S. -- putting it in the article of a town twenty miles away feels insufficient, and has every time that this issue has come up. My feeling is, if there's a place to sleep and a place to eat, and it's not part of some other municipality, we might as well have an article on it. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:34, 31 January 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. While I'm no expert on yogic retreats, this seems to be a nice little article, and seems to have all the things we look for in destination guides (sights, food, lodging, etc.). And it's created by a clearly talented new contributor who has even created a WT-style map for the article! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:07, 31 January 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. I'm planning to go to the Isha Center later this year and have found this information most helpful - I don't know where else I could access some of these specifics that will help me plan my travel so I am very grateful for this. There is some duplication in the article that could be paired down and I suspect the author could include links to other sites where some of this material is discussed at length. One important point to consider is that this is NOT a private resort. Based on my understanding the Isha Center is open to the public and hosts many events throughout the year to which the public is warmly invited. (WT-en) Rebecca Reynolds 00:43, 1 February 2011 (EST)
    Hi Rebecca. Just wanted to mention that I elaborated and went into such detail because I thought that all the valid information should be available on a single page so the traveler could just print-out the wikivoyage guide and set off. And the manual of style recommended that external links be kept to a bare minimum, which is why I avoided them. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Regstuff (talk • contribs)
    You're absolutely right about the external links. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:40, 1 February 2011 (EST)
    Thanks for your responses, I stand corrected, as I said I am grateful for this information and appreciate how easy it is to locate with Wiki, my first destination search site. (WT-en) Rebecca Reynolds 13:28, 1 February 2011 (EST)

"keep!" this is not just some private resort. Isha Yoga Center gets millions of visitors each year. There are some events which attract 100,000 participants in a day. Keep it! You have an article about the Playboy Mansion, which is private. —The preceding comment was added by 24.7.91.234 (talk • contribs)

Um... No, we don't have an article about that. you're confusing us with Wikipedia perhaps. (WT-en) Texugo 12:17, 1 February 2011 (EST)
  • Erm,Keep, this is a tricky one. It seems like a very nice article, but one which sets a dangerous precedent, especially for a destination in India, where i'm less inclined to deviate from any policy, since we already have anarchy ruling on Wikivoyages own Indian micro cosmos. I say keep, but I just want to go on record and say I have a feeling this will spell trouble with persistent Indian resort/hill station owners down the line. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:05, 1 February 2011 (EST)
  • Merge and delete As Stefan explained this article sets a dangerous path for all indian yoga shrines. If we keep this article we will face creation of hundreds of similiar articles. India is already one of our most touted countries and its already today hard to control. I fear that touts like in Rishikesh will take over and therefore oppose this precedent. (WT-en) jan 03:04, 2 February 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. Velangiri Biosphere is an important geographical location within India located in South. They rival the spiritual and sporting charm and romance of the Himalayas. Isha Center happens to be one of the places from where to experience the Southern Kailash, as the Velangiris are known in India.--(WT-en) Classictoad 23:01, 6 February 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. One of the things that distinguishes this Ashram is that it also has a Rejuvenation Center which I visited in Aug-Sep 2010. This seems to be an important feature that should be mentioned in this listing as it attracts visitors with an array of medical issues which are addressed at the Rejuvenation Center.--(WT-en) mkh 19:29, 7 February 2011 (EST)
  • Keep.I was looking for more info on this yoga center and I found the information really useful. I don't understand why would we want to delete this. The whole point of wikivoyages is to provide this kind of information to folks searching the net. Please keep this. —The preceding comment was added by 99.59.229.175 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone else find it extremely suspicious that we would get five "keep" responses from five different people, none of whom have ever contributed to Wikivoyage before, but all of whom have knowledge of this not-so-well-known place and all of whom have managed to happen upon the vfd page to make their first contribution?. (WT-en) texugo 22:53, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Considering there's a notice at the top of the page in question, I don't think it's so odd for someone to find their way to this page. Maybe the page is more popular than we thought. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:00, 11 February 2011 (EST)
I agree with Texugo; I don't think this place seems to be that popular. (WT-en) –sumone10154 12:06, 11 February 2011 (EST)
  • Keep. While this doesn't meet the standard Project:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:05, 18 February 2011 (EST)
    Any further comment? This nomination has been open for a while so it's time to get it resolved - I'm not sure that there is a consensus, but there are enough reasons & votes to keep it that I would lean towards resolving it that way. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep - Great travel destination for enlightment. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 173.48.130.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Reluctant Keep I really wonder if this place could not be summed up in a single listing in a city article however, for now, I'll go with Ryan. I do agree with Peter though that this could lead to a slippery slope, since our Indian articles are usually very spammy, touty, etc. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:55, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
I am still of the opinion that 5-6 of the above "keeps" are a person or persons involved in doing that kind of touting in the first place. (WT-en) texugo 09:17, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:26, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since February 2009, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:50, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:33, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since February 2006, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:08, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:33, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since July 2009, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since October 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since April 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. This was started upon a couple of suggestions here, but now that all of the information it has to offer (e.g., Promenade Plantée, and the metro lines) has been covered by a district article, it could be safely deleted. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:01, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:07, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:14, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:42, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2011&oldid=4924679"