Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2008

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

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

  • Delete. Seemed to be consensus that this was not desirable on the talk page a couple years ago, but it never made it here... so, here it is! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:46, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Abstain. Sidenote: if the consensus is to delete it, let's detail in FAQ what we recommend to do instead of using a template like this. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Basically, we almost never use templates. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:51, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Not an article.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Advertising for a hotel. The same author has created other images that should probably go as well. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:11, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Not an article --(WT-en) Nick 03:05, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Not an article -- (WT-en) Jnich99 12:54, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Tiny village with no hotels and no restaurants. The couple of Route 66 sights can be summed up in the McLean (Texas) article.

Outcome: Redirected to McLean (Texas). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

January 2008

edit

Not linked to from anywhere, not mentioned on Talk:Sydney or Talk:Sydney/DistrictsVsSuburbs or Talk:Sydney/ProblemsWithDistricts or Talk:Sydney/Refactoring, and ==Sleep== says: "no accommodation for tourists is on offer in Davidson". ~ 58.8.14.82 11:58, 24 January 2008 (EST)

An entirely legitimate page. Links from Davidson Wikipedia page; contains useful info for visitors. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.107.1.85 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 January 2008

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Pseudo-Sydney/Davidson article. ~ 58.8.14.82 12:07, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Both are historical regions which now break our geographical hierarchy because they contain not only more than one state of Poland, but also part of the Ukraine (in the case of East Galicia) and Germany/Czech Republic (in the case of Silesia). Unless we want to start having articles or disambiguation pages for things like Prussia and Ottoman Empire and Assyria. My vote is no on that. I can imagine a case where a historical region might provide a useful modern division, sparking two articles like East Galicia (Poland) and East Galicia (Ukraine), but in both these cases we already have more relevant subdivision schemes in place.

  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 02:22, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, but first we need to get rid of all the links to those two articles --(WT-en) Nick 08:16, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
  • I don't know. So they "break our geographical hierarchy"; is that a bad thing? Granted, we need a hierarchy so that the breadcrumbs will work, and in general having the hierarchy helps to organise things. No argument there. But "all grammars leak" , no hierarchy will actually match the world. What is the harm in having articles that fall outside the structure, provided they are about genuine historical regions, and provided they consist mostly of overview material and links to the hierarchically orgainsed articles? (WT-en) Pashley 07:43, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, Silesia doesn't make much sense at least from the Czech point of view. I already changed the Czech region from Silesia to Czech Silesia, however I think it can even be merged with Moravia.--(WT-en) Kyknos 05:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

The former was marked for merging into the other back in Dec. 2005, before our archives, so I don't know if any discussion ever took place, but obviously we don't need both of these articles. It is doubtful to me whether we need either, because the extreme length of both articles is highly disproportionate to the amount of useful information there. I think it's a little ambitious personally.

  • Delete both. This is a bit random in a way and a very large chunk to cover. If it was a heavily trafficked or historically well-known route like Istanbul to New Delhi over land it would make sense... or if it was even halfway well-written like that one, then maybe... but right now they're just long lists of possible cities to visit, I don't see any real reason to keep this as an itinerary. Especially given that Istanbul to New Delhi already exists, if you really want to go further, create New Delhi to Kuala Lumpur overland – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Abstain. Sidenote: if the consensus is to delete it, let's detail in FAQ what we recommend to do instead of using a template / formatting like this. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Basically, we almost never use templates. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. This doesn't need to be a template, it's info that should be in the "sleep" section of the main Spain article, and if it needs to be a box on Barcelona, etc, then just add an infobox to those pages – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:59, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep: this template is used to create a new real template: to play with template engine before creating a live template. It helped me several times for this purpose. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

April 2008

edit

An article about an icehouse in Kerman, Iran, I guess? Anyway, seems like a non-article. Maybe merge content? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Not a valid travel article (WT-en) Jnich99 11:49, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Not an article. vfd'd rather than speedy so contributor can see this --(WT-en) Nick 17:07, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Hardly even a village. No attractions, accommodations or restaurants. Not even a mention of the place on the official Texas website nor on Wikipedia.

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Not a valid travel article. (WT-en) Jnich99 04:41, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

A body of water is not a valid article.

Outcome: redirected – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Advertisement, totally useless image. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Same creator, same issues as previous one. This contributor may be unclear on what images are supposed to accomplish. Or not. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:09, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:07, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Not a valid article per policy. Would have speedy-deleted it but I want the contributor to see the reason here.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 02:48, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 02:48, 24 May 2008 (EDT)


Outcome: Delete --(WT-en) Nick 02:48, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2008&oldid=4919892"