Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2006

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

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

  • Delete - An orphan page. Testen is probably German for Testing. A google search turns up 22 million references, most of them in German. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:11, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Content was "Australian Christian Music Group" I think maybe someone misread "t-r-a-v-e-l" as "p-e-d-i-a" ;-) (WT-en) Majnoona 22:02, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
    • LOL, Maj ... I think you can rapid-delete this one without being pilloried ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:06, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
      • I was kinda hoping I could find a place with that name, like with Cherry, but doesn't seem like it... (WT-en) Majnoona 22:16, 2 May 2006 (EDT)

Not an article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:03, 3 May 2006 (EDT)


  • Delete. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delte. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delte. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I created this district with the minimal information I had about the city's districts and as it was pointed out to me by Jpatokal this is not a district. (WT-en) Sapphire 15:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)


  • Delete. Rzym means Rome in Polish, but this is not Polish Wikivoyage anyway. Besides, the original content was only wikispam. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:43, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Majnoona 16:52, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • User indicated in the summary field that the content was copyrighted. I blanked it and put a note on their talk page. (WT-en) Majnoona 16:52, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. Maybe the note saying "This content has been provided and approved for posting on Wikivoyage" at the bottom of the page means the content has been released under cc-by-sa-1. However, in fact there seems to be little in that article not already covered on the actual Switzerland article and we don't need that kind of overlapping. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 18:03, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:52, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Created in March 2005, expanded by Huttite, but showed up in Orphaned pages only recently. Somewhat puzzling, but is a rather specific disease, so as an article has no place in Wikivoyage. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:30, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

Brookings-Harbor listings

edit

A whole slew of articles were created for the Eat and Drink lisings in Brookings-Harbor. I thought it easier to lump them together in one VFD. I've started moving the content into the main destination article. Any reason why these shouldn't go quickly? (WT-en) Majnoona 23:50, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

Nope, go ahead and speedy-nuke as soon as the content is rescued. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:19, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

Not an article. Violates naming conventions too. No content. Swift delete, I think. (WT-en) Pashley 19:27, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

  • I already tried speedy-deleting it as part of the clean-up from the Brookings-Harbor misunderstanding above, but can't because of the "&" in the page name. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:18, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Troll created page. Apparently "Red" is within the vocabulary of the troll who likes to make substub pages. Wikipedia does not acknowledge such a place. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:18, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. I'd even say obvious vandalism, speedy delete. (But am not so confident in that to do it myself.) -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:04, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
      • I was afraid someone might cough up a "Red, Outer Yukon" or something. I case of doubt, better to go through the vfd process. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:39, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:52, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I looked but could not find! (WT-en) Majnoona 21:49, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • We don't need an article for this. Yet-another-list about Winter Olympic sites could be some sort of article maybe, especially if mixed in with a helping of general advice about such places. But not one article per-ancient miscapitalized event. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:51, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
  • "A manga cafe" in Tokyo. Should be listed in Tokyo directly. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:29, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Originally, a sub district, which didn't constitute a need for a district. I surgically operated on this article and several articles to create a more accurate article in my sandbox. I then imported that into Berlin/Mitte. - (WT-en) Sapphire 11:29, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Ok, It is an attraction in Berlin that needs explanation. I will improve the text. (WT-en) Jan 07:035, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Originally, a sub district, which didn't constitute a need for a district. I surgically operated on this article and several articles to create a more accurate article in my sandbox. I then imported that into Berlin/Mitte. - (WT-en) Sapphire 11:29, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Agree. I will work on this one,too (WT-en) Jan 07:37, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Originally, a sub district, which didn't constitute a need for a district. I surgically operated on this article and several articles to create a more accurate article in my sandbox. I then imported that into Berlin/Mitte. - (WT-en) Sapphire 11:29, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Agree. (WT-en) Jan 07:37, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
  • This page is of no practical use. It is useless as an actual packing list, because it includes items that are useful only for some kinds of travel and omits items that are useful in others. It's one person's comprehensive things-I-might-ever-bring packing list, slightly edited. In fact, most times when people make good-faith attempts to edit this page, one of its guardians reverts it, even when the edits are not the kind of blatant personalization that originally inspired this unilateral, no-discussion pattern of reversion. I believe this is inappropriate, but my attempt to question it on the Talk page has been mostly ignored. The combination of this page's uselessness and the fact that it inspires this kind of behavior by otherwise responsible editors are why I think Wikivoyage would be better without it. Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:47, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Oppose. Sure, this list isn't useful as a packing list for most people -- but that's because no list could be. This is more a list of things to consider packing, and in most cases the user can cross each useless item out in one second and move on. I have lists that are just for me, and when I use them I do the same thing even though they are already tailored for me -- cross out the items which don't apply to my trip of the day. For me, an online list like this could have been the start for one of my lists when I originally wrote it. Yeah, I would've modified the heck out of it, but it's a start and includes things that I forgot were important until the third or fourth revision of my personal list. Could this article be improved? Of course, but we don't delete articles which could be travel topics -- we only delete ones which could never become a topic. I could however, support renaming this to "How to make a packing list" and adapting it to the new, improved topic. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:25, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I don't think this article (current name and contents) is a valid travel topic, nor can it be. The premise of the article is unsound: a completely generic packing list is as pointless as a restaurant list for Europe. It tries too hard to think of everything, and inevitably fails at it. More focused and in-depth guides (e.g. Packing for a cruise) could be useful. Now, you say this article could be improved, but I don't see any substantial improvement happening in the 2+ years since it was created (despite a lot of editing)... unless of course you count the addition of a friendly red warningbox telling people that they're not allowed to take anything out, but may only add to the list, to make it more "complete". I don't think that will make it useful. I'm sorry, but the emperor here has packed no clothes. This article was DOA, and it's time we stopped reverting it and pronounced it dead. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:15, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Oppose. The list could obviously be improved, but shouldn't be deleted. A packing list is included in all guidebooks that I have read because it is useful - it propts you to think about things even if you won't need them. This list does the same - it helps you think and you mentally discard/ignore the items that don't apply. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:33, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
    • It actually just makes me marvel at the things someone inexplicably found "essential" or "very useful"... and the irony that "OCD meds" somehow got left off the list. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:15, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Makes you think about what need to take. Can be a quick reference for people like me that have a mind melt just before time to start packing. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:50, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. Wow, this page has really changed from when I voted. To be honest, I think the page is worthless now. The other page could have been tweeked, but I voted for a list not this! I know Todd has strong feelings about what was there before. I don't, but I want my vote to be clear. The list is much better for me, it is quick, makes you think. I'm a scatter brained and the "list" is much better for me. I would not use what is there now. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 10:56, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, but edit into something more sensible. I've been travelling for years without much of the stuff it calls "essential". (WT-en) Pashley 04:23, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Comment: Since it seems there are several people who want to keep this train-wreck, could I ask you folks to engage in editing it, instead of just reverting it when someone who disagrees with your no-deletions policy tries to improve it? I tried to address the question of whether this page was of use on Talk:Packing list, and suggested an alternative that I thought would be more useful, and only Maj responded; none of the sentinels who've been page-protecting it did. She asked for a plan for how this page (or any page about packing) could be done so it would actually work; no one offered any. Just another immediate revert of the next anonymous edit. Project:consensus says "Unless it is clearly vandalism or graffiti, simply reverting somebody else's changes will normally be unhelpful." When someone removes "recipes" or "resumes" or "tongue cleaner" from the list, that isn't vandalism; please stop treating it as such. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:10, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I looked at my history with the article; I reverted changes like deleting "bottle of water" without explanation. Also deleting "business cards" and adding "Spanish phrase book" without explanation. While not malicious vandalism, this makes the article worse, not better. I have no problem reverting that. It's hard, if not impossible, to discuss these changes with anonymous users who don't leave comments. The issue of improving the article is a separate one...if a stub article keeps getting vandalized, do I have a responsibility to improve it if I revert changes and vote "Keep"? -- (WT-en) Jonboy 10:31, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
      • If someone makes selective edits such as removing a few items and/or inserting a few, that's not vandalism. That's a disagreement. Maybe you believe that removing "business cards" makes it a worse list, but that anon editor doesn't (and neither do I). The appropriate solution to that kind of general difference of opinion is to discuss it on the article's Talk page, which is what I tried to do. If someone is going to put a page on their watchlist and revert changes to it, they have a responsibility to pay attention to its Talk page, in case someone expresses a differing opinion, and if that happens: address it. Yes, discussing changes with anonymous editors is hard... but discussing them with other regular editors is not. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:44, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. Would be helpful if sections such as Cruise, Europe, North America, etc were formed, with an intro about how writing your own packing list is helpful in preparing for a trip. One puppy's opinion. (WT-en) KillerChihuahua 11:02, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, in line with Colin's opinion above. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:29, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Withdrawn. In keeping with the consensus that something should be kept there, and the general disatisfaction with what's there now, I'm going to take a stab at rebuilding it as a how-to/ideas article (rather than a checklist). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:24, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep the new version. It was painfully pointless to continue tinkering with a universal packing list. (WT-en) Todd's converting it into a series of queries about a particular individual's specific trip should be sufficient to get most reasonable travelers thinking about what to pack. (WT-en) SHC 18:09, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep the new version. (WT-en) Pashley 02:54, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • So this is a rare consensus achieved. I am closing this VFD as Keep — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:20, 25 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Why on earth do we have this? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:04, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Oppose. The "British Isles" is a well known geographic term and describes a general destination. It doesn't have to be a long or comprehensive article, just point you in the right direction. A few people take umbrage over the term, but the present "health warning" should mollify them. I do agree that it is a bit of an outdated term, but not strongly enough to justify deleting it. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:37, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Wouldn't it make sense to redirect this to United Kingdom? Since Éire doesn't want to be called by this name, and Man and the Channels are officially loyal to the Crown, would anyone be seriously offended by that? (Not rhetorical: I'm asking.) If they would, why not instead limit this page to a disambig-style explanation that the term is confusing, and refer them directly to the Republic, the Kingdom, etc. rather than treating it like this, as a level of our geographic hierarchy? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:39, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep since it's a well known geographical term, but convert to a disambig page for Ireland and UK since it's an archaic term. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:05, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
  • I like Colin's idea. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:49, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Me too. (WT-en) Pashley 22:24, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I tried to convert it to a disambig page. If people like it, I'll close this vfd. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:09, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
  • An attraction, not a destination. I've merged the content with Burren, where it belongs. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 14:40, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
    • In which case, simply redirect it to Burren. That way, people who've heard of the attraction but not the destination can be routed to the information painlessly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:25, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
      • I converted to the redirect. I'll let someone close out this vfd if they agree. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 22:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
  • The page creation troll is a well-known non-speller. So even if this place exists, which Wikipedia does not acknowledge, it's still probably spelled wrong. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:20, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep and redirect. According to , it's a legitimate alternate spelling for Ban Sok Noi. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:02, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
    • This raises an interesting question: what to do about misspelled pages when the page with the "correct" spelling doesn't exist yet? As far as I can tell, the standard approach for misspellings/alternative spellings is to redirect to the page for the correct spelling, but we can't do that here. If somebody would take a crack at starting Ban Sok Noi, I'll do the redirect, but I really can't see keeping this one as a stand-alone. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:55, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
I've moved Ban Sok Mai to Ban Sok Noi, put in an outline and I am now closing the VFD. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:41, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

Old name of Chongqing is Chungking. I was creating that as a redirect to current name, bungled it and created Chunking as well.

I am thinking just redirect this as well. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:27, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
Keep as a redirect. Google shows >70Khits for "chunking china", so it's a common (mis)transliteration. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:42, 25 May 2006 (EDT)
Now redirected, per spelling policy: if there's a reasonable chance that the spelling error might be repeated, then just redirect it. (BTW, there seems to be a strange glitch, maybe of the "that's not a bug, that's a feature" variety, with doing a redirect while a vfd banner is present. That's fixed too.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:16, 26 May 2006 (EDT)
  • According to Wikipedia [], this troll-created article is part of a town. Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Colin 10:58, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is a pretty small island, but it is well known in that area and I think it could be expanded. Bailey Island that is mentioned in the WikiPedia reference is even more well know. I have been thinking of creating a region or sub-region in Maine to cover the many islands. Of course Orr's Island would be included. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:48, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Looks like the path forward is to redirect to Harpswell, the town allegedly containing this island. I've taken the liberty. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:06, 26 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Too small (no hotels, motels, b&bs and campgrounds, as far as I can tell.), no content -- (WT-en) Jonboy 09:48, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. If it's a "real town" that trumps the place-to-sleep rule of thumb in my book. See Cherry for an example. (WT-en) Majnoona 11:21, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Proper template now added. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:01, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:11, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Overlaps with Overland from Singapore to Shanghai. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:02, 10 May 2006 (EDT) Note: I've changed my mind and am now in favor of keeping this. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

  • Keep. I think we need to work out what to do for itineraries that overlap, but I don't think that deleting the shortest segments is the answer. --(WT-en) Evan 22:18, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
    • If the shorter segment is more intensive or somehow covers matters from a different viewpoint, I would agree. For example, a longer journey might be accomplished in fewer days and pick fewer sights to see. In the absence of an explaination like that, I'm leaning toward merge and delete. -- (WT-en) Colin
      • Isn't Project:Itineraries a better place to discuss this? I think the nature of itineraries, as we have them mapped out, makes them very likely to have overlapping and duplicate information. For example, we have itineraries that cover the same area but with different time periods. I also think that for someone who's going from Bangkok to Saigon, Overland from Singapore to Shanghai has a lot of information they don't need, and probably leaves out some information they may want. I think dupes in itineraries are OK, since mostly they should link out to destination guides for detailed information. Finally, I think that some of the non-destination-guide content like travel topics and itineraries need more in the way of growth, not pruning. Let's wait until having too many itineraries is a problem before we start hacking out duplicates. --(WT-en) Evan 19:38, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Singapore to Shanghai is a completely different itinerary. 84.9.98.130 18:40, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Could you please elaborate on this? On the face of it this new itinary is completely covered in the prior article. Why do you think we need a separate article for this segment rather than just incorporating this content into the older article? -- (WT-en) Colin 19:11, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Yeah, this is my question too. I'm OK with different itineraries that cover different routes, but having different pages for exactly the same route just seems redundant. Would it be an acceptable compromise to chop up Singapore-Shanghai into Singapore-Bangkok, Bangkok-HCMC, HCMC-Shanghai legs? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:23, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
  • I think the suggestion of chopping up Singapore-Shangai into Singapore-BKK, BKK-HCMC and HCMC-Shanghai and then incorporating the two itineraries we now have into those three is the best suggestion! It solves both the overlap problem and the problem of irrelevance of a singapore-shanghai itinerary for someone travelling out of Bangkok. (WT-en) Piroco 12:25, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. The shorter segment is in fact more intensive and matters more from a different viewpoint, so Colin's test is fulfilled, I think. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:45, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Have a look at how it's been organized now. I've followed up on Jpatokal's suggestion to create singapore-bkk, bkk-hcmc and hcmc-shanghai, that should suit everybody's needs. Overlap is unavoidable, both with city guides and with other suggested itineraries. I don't think the way around it is to delete and merge as much as possible. Let the hundred flowers blossom. (WT-en) Piroco 14:53, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
  • I have looked and do not like the "solution". As I see it, One month in Southeast Asia plus the various city and country entries cover everything that's in Bangkok-HCMC. Travelling Bangkok-HCMC is just part of wandering around SE Asia; there is no reason to have it as a separate itinerary. S'pore-Shanghai, on the other hand, is long enough to be interesting. I'm tempted to restore it to its earlier form, but will await comment and perhaps consensus. (WT-en) Pashley 10:00, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Am I the only one getting a feeling this is turning into some kind of turf war? Quite frankly a bit tired of spending my time on an unproductive debate over structure, it doesn't feel very constructive to have a never ending debate about where to put stuff, and I'm not really sure it is the most important thing we should be worried about either. Pashley's arguments are nonsensical; why merge BKK-HCMC into the One month in Southeast Asia which is, at this point, only a stub? Why not rather link to a more extensive itinerary from the list of suggestions on the one month-article? Why keep singapore-shanghai, when the route covered is more accessible to more people if it's split up, but will be difficult to find if we keep it as it was? If you only want to travel one leg of it, you're not likely to look at a singapore-shanghai article if where you want to go is bangkok to siem reap. Why are long itineraries 'more interesting' than shorter ones? Well, I guess it's a view of sorts, but it certainly isn't very well founded. Sorry, I don't get it --- are we in some kind of turf war or are we still trying to make a travel site? I need to be reminded. (WT-en) Piroco 00:09, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
    • You're stumbled onto a little gray area in Wikivoyage's policies, so what you're seeing now is people trying to figure out how we should handle not just this, but future cases as well. The correct thing to do, though, is to keep the article and continue the policy discussion on Project:Itineraries. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
    • What gave me the feeling of a turf war, and irritated me fairly severely, was the retaliatory vfd on S'pore to Shanghai, followed by splitting it up before any consensus had been reached. Possibly parts of my response were over-reaction. Any further discussion on Project:Itineraries. (WT-en) Pashley 02:23, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. To make the consensus clear, I've changed my mind too. This intinerary is clearly a good contribution, and we should keep it. We do have some issues to sort out — the general problem of intinerary overlap, whether splitting S'pore to Shanghai was actually a good idea, whether some stuff currently in this itinerary should be in destination articles — but only Jpatokal and I ever advocated deleting this one, so now that we've both rethought that, there's consensus. (WT-en) Pashley 11:40, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • OK, so this discussion is copied to the article's talk page, and I've removed the VFD banner from the article itself. The VFD nomination is going away shortly, unless there are objections. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:44, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Part of the district Mitte and few content. I will transfer the rest to Mitte. (WT-en) Jan 09:08, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:57, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Part of the Mitte district and mostly redundant content to Mitte. I transfered already the usuable content. (WT-en) Jan 09:35, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:57, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delte. Jan and I are reformatting the districts so we don't have sub-districts. (WT-en) Sapphire 17:51, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Incorrect PD tag, the source helpfully given clearly asserts copyright . — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:48, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A fine source of travel information, but Wikivoyage is not an index of travel information. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:46, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

I don't think this is a sensible travel topic, it'll just degenerate into a link listing, but it's a bit borderline. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:53, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

  • I find these travelcasts useful for trip planning. If they shouldn't be here, please feel free to delete. (WT-en) ToddCostella 12:57, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Unfortunately (?) the Project:External links policy is quite strict on this point -- there are lots of things out there that are useful for the traveler, but Wikivoyage aims to be self-contained, and URL to a podcast isn't going to do you much good when out there traveling. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:04, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

An encyclopedia entry about a travel web site. Not what Wikivoyage is about. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:20, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete, not an actual city despite text which says otherwise. It's also a Highly Improbable spelling, which is typical of the "look at me mom! look! look at me!" article creation troll. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:21, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep
  • Yeah, he's off his meds again. But I'm afraid this is an actual speck on the map. I'm not voting to keep because I don't think it's significant enough to create an article for, but I'm not voting to delete either because site policy apparently requires us to keep pointless articles for specks on the map. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:10, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Well, since Wikipedia has an article for pretty much every census-designated place (which is something even less than a small town), I'm guessing this is literally a corner, which is not an article. Most of the Google hits for this seem to be of the "we rent cars, so create a car rental page for every location name in the USGS database" kinds of things. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:32, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
  • It's not so much that the spelling is "highly improbable" (Tysons Corner in suburban Washington, DC unequivocally exists, has nearly 20,000 people, and would qualify as a destination were it not in the DC metro area), but it's just not a destination. In principle it could be redirected to Auburn (Maine), which seems to be the closest actual town, but I'm OK with just deleting it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:03, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
  • The inside of a hotel room. Not a relevant image. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:06, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has nothing to do with the destination except for one hotel trying to hawk its wares. At least they're up-front about it ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. On the Japanese version, it's common practice to have pictures of lodgings, and I don't see why we couldn't do the same in English (or other versions) -- it is, after all, nice for the traveler to see what they get for their money. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:39, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
    • Hotels' own pages, many of which are linked on destination pages, are there precisely so the traveler can "see what they get for their money" at the particular hotel. That's not what we are here for, and this isn't Japanese Wikivoyage. Leaving this one in sets up an obvious slippery slope, unless, to quote Project:Image policy, it is "necessary to get across a point or impression" pertaining to the destination as a whole. I don't see it. This is an advertisement, and it doesn't belong. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
  • To throw my two cents in - we could use this image for Hotels, but that article already has an example of an average hotel room. We probably should delete the image as it doesn't have any info about its license. - Sapphire
  • Delete. I don't have a problem with photos of lodgings if they're particularly interesting (e.g. a hostel in a 12-century castle) or generally informative (e.g. this is what a typical Freedonian motel room is like), but providing this level of information about listings is a bit of mission-creep that I don't support. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:50, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2006&oldid=4924694"