Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2010

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in May 2010. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/March 2010 or Project:Votes for deletion/June 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:16, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Looks like a probably copyvio to me. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete - It's far too small to be legible anyway. (WT-en) Texugo 22:04, 8 November 2009 (EST)
On shared, can't take any action here. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Handled on shared:. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Another one from Huntingdon Valley. I guess there is a WT school project in the Philadelphia area at the moment? The image is from glencairn.org. The page seems to have been taken down but you can see the identical thumbnail in a Google image search here. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Also on shared. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Handled on shared:. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Project:What_is_an_article? states companies don't get pages. (WT-en) Nrms 12:12, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Speedy deleted as advertising. (Turns out that's the second time, too!) -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 12:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Seems to be one of those ex-Soviet state factional things (for want of a better way of putting it!) The page itself is a political statement of no use here. I'm not sure, however, if it is likely to become a destination. Alternative is to follow the English Wikipedia stance and redirect to Armenia. (Other Wikipedias do have a page for Ermenistan, but given I think Google page translations are blocked where I am, I don't want to try and get translations. (WT-en) Nrms 11:28, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Speedy: Would never call for an article, and the first edition of thepage is just graffiti anyway! (WT-en) Nrms 11:29, 6 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Wikivoyage isn't a drug store or an online store that advertises viagra or any kind of drug-related things.

  • Delete -(WT-en) SnappyHip 8:39, 10 March 2010 (GST)
  • Speedied again. I am a bit surprised to see that one as Talk Rome/ has been a spam magnet and well watched. Thanks SnappyHip.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:48, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Clear copyvio as it helpfully tells us in the middle of the map. I have already removed from Mabul. Somehow it has survived here since August 2008 --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:30, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

I don't think anyone reads the talk page of the article, so I am bringing up this issue, since it has been around since 2006: The article naming conventions as well as consensus on the article's talk page show that the article should be Sao Paulo (without the ã). This requires admin to do, I believe, since Sao Paulo has already been created, right? That is why I bring it up here. It would be nice to finally get this right and make it a redirect to Sao Paulo. São Paulo (state) is the same. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:14, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Sounds appropriate. In the future, though, Project:Requests for comment is a better way to draw attention to a non-deletion discussion that is going unnoticed. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:21, 8 February 2010 (EST)
The current setup (with the São Paulo and a redirect from Sao Paulo) is fine to me and complies with Project:Naming conventions policy that the name with no diacritics be a redirect. Usage of the tilde in English is mixed, with the following English-language sources using it:
(WT-en) AHeneen 01:03, 9 February 2010 (EST)
I've added a request at Project:Naming conventions#Latin Characters for anyone who understands what constitutes a "Latin character with or without accents/diacritics" to add some additional clarification in the naming guidelines as this seems to be a constant point of confusion for contributors, particularly those of us in the US. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:43, 9 February 2010 (EST)
I think that's a good idea. There was previously consensus on Sao Paulo, but now that I've brought it up, new views are going the other way! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:35, 9 February 2010 (EST)
Be a lot bloody easier if we just said "write in English and don't use accents and diacritics". But I know that will never get past the umlaut and tilde brigade :). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:56, 9 February 2010 (EST)
I have to agree with Burmesedays. If the rule was simply: "English Wikivoyage is written in English", things would be much simpler. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:19, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Kept. Naming conventions have been discussed and updated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:01, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Delete. Copyrighted image on flickr and claimed to be CC-A 2.5 on Wikivoyage. In addition there is a similar photo on flickr under CC-A : http://www.flickr.com/photos/martijnmunneke/2691578367/ (WT-en) Sissou 00:19, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:04, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

News articles and category in Korean

edit

These are useless for en: since they are written in Korean. And they are also useless for ko: since ko: has no travel news section now. That language version is still translating policies and guidelines.

  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Tatata7 04:50, 4 November 2009 (EST)
  • Ask a Korean to delete. Only they can be sure if this is actually useful. They may be able to move it somewhere useful. Or they may be able to explain it, ask for a short-term exception that allows this oddity on English WT. I'd be inclined to say no since other versions have been started without visible problems on en:, but there is a precedent (see above) so perhaps we should just live with it for a while. (WT-en) Pashley 06:21, 4 November 2009 (EST)
Can't we just move the info to ko, and it can be sorted there? --(WT-en) inas 14:16, 4 November 2009 (EST)
  • Keep until the Korean language version has the equivalent articles, then ask someone on Wikivoyage/ko: who is a go-between to nominate articles here. I would rather these articles hang around here until we are certain they have been translated and created correctly on ko:. And yes there are precedents for doing this. A few years ago, I recall one of the other language versions was set up on Wikivoyage/en: until they could get the language version setup file translated. (WT-en) Huttite 08:45, 6 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete Everything Korean, it's completely bogus and unusable for the guys over there, as it's all very poorly translated by a robot thanks to our "dear" mkPaolo. They're not going to use it, and we have even less reason too. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 14:45, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Are any of the above opinions changed by Stefan's information? Despite the lack of interwiki links, it's clear that most (perhaps all, I didn't check every one) of those articles have already received translations on ko, and even without reading Korean it's obvious that they're not direct copies (e.g. Project:Deletion policy/ko → ). - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:49, 10 January 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:06, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Monticello Railway duplicates

edit

These are all smaller-size duplicates of Image:Monticello Railway.jpg and thus unneeded. Image:Monticello Picture.jpg is the one in use, but I see no compelling reason not to switch it out for the larger image. These were uploaded here by User:(WT-en) WikiTravel, but a duplicate that exists on shared (wts:Image:Monticello 2.jpg) was uploaded by wts:User:(WT-shared) Ariel. See also #Image:Sages.jpg. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. I get the feeling we should just wait for the assignment due date, and then clean up Monticello --(WT-en) inas 22:24, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed. Since they still seem to be at it, I let these slide for today's cleanup pass.

Result: Delete -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:08, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Ariel Lickton's images

edit

All of these have duplicates currently on Shared. Admittedly, they're up for deletion there, too, but even if they're kept on Shared, we don't need the duplicates here. See also #Image:Sages.jpg (WT-en) LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:20, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

This one was uploaded to shared as wts:Image:Community flair.jpg by wts:User:(WV-wts) Ariel (who appears to be the same as en:User:(WT-en) Ariel Lickton, see also #Ariel Lickton's images) but here on :en it was uploaded by User:(WT-en) WikiTravel. Hmm! Anyway, since it's duplicated on Shared, we don't need it here. See also #Monticello Railway duplicates (WT-en) LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:20, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Another one by user User:(WT-en) Ariel Lickton, no licensing information, and no responses of any sort on talk page. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 10:11, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Technically User:(WT-en) WikiTravel, but appears to be the same person based on uploads. If we delete this one, though, we should delete all of her images; this one is no more or less suspicious than any of the others. Lack of licensing information is hardly a barrier; as Jani has pointed out several times, all image uploads are licensed CC by-sa 1.0 by default. (I'm not a fan of this policy, mind you, but it seems to be established convention.) (WT-en) LtPowers 14:01, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:20, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

An attraction, not a destination.

  • Merge with Kamakura and Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Merge, and possibly redirect, as this would stop a future creation of the same attraction article. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:09, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect. The capitalisation is wrong though so I guess a redirect should be there for Fueda Park as well. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:21, 26 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete - According to Google, this appears to be the name of a Japanese company, not a place. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:33, 24 November 2009 (EST)
There is now some content in the article. As it is only 15 mins from Hakodate airport though, my guess is it should be covered in that article? I have found a ref to Kameo School in Hakodate and this implies Kameo is a district of Hakodate I think? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)
and a map here. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:36, 25 November 2009 (EST)

Let's keep it... I appreciate the need for oversight and realize that this action had good intentions, but obviously this deletion recommendation has jumped the gun. I worry that this action and others on the Wiki Travel Japan section recently (such as the editing of Sugamo and Komagome) are being influenced by a narrow perspective. Are we trying to make Wiki Travel Japan into a Lonely Planet type guide book? At this point in our project, I would prefer that we give more leeway to locals trying to introduce their cities... That means leeway with language use (correct errors but respect phrasing - No need to describe the price of Soba in a sarcastic way - although I did think it was funny) and leeway with the way things are categorized (there's no need to lump Sugamo into Toshima Ward, is there?). In short, let's err on the side of caution when we see an entry by a non-native speaker. This will allow more and more Japanese to take part in Wiki Travel which seems necessary, especially at this point in its development. By black turtleneck

This is a town of Hokkaido, so this isn't a company. By Mi

I can support keeping this while people add the info, but there are way too many Japanese destinations being created for places that don't need articles. I think this, as well as others, need to be merged. How long do we wait though? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:43, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I understand your idea. However,Kameo has many good things. I think Hakodate has a lot of information.So,people don't have rection to Kameo. What do you think? By Mi —The preceding comment was added by 114.18.54.68 (talk • contribs)

  • Merge - Kameo is still a relatively small neighborhood of Hakodate, which is not big enough to have its article subdivided. I don't see any point at all in waiting till people add more information here before merging it. I doubt if there is too much more to add anyway, and the redirect will just help people realize they should add any info to the correct place, in the Hakodate article.(WT-en) Texugo 23:22, 14 January 2010 (EST)
  • Merge - If Kameo should have its own article, it would be a district of Hakodate, I guess, but Hakodate is not ready for districtification (and might never be), so there is no need for this article and its content could just as well be merged into Hakodate, (WT-en) ClausHansen 23:56, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I read everyone opinion,I felt it is good to be merger. by Mi

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:06, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Not an article but an attraction.

  • Delete --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:59, 16 December 2009 (EST). Having read the comments below, reiterate delete. Each relevant destination will come up in searches anyway. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:05, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to the appropriate London district - London/Mayfair-Marylebone? Redirect or delete. If redirected then redirect to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. A disambiguation page seems like overkill, and as to redirecting the London location is the original and seems to be by far most famous - see for example Wikipedia which states "Madame Tussauds is a wax museum in London with branches in a number of major cities." -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:27, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • I guess someone might search for it. Yes, London/Mayfair-Marylebone would be the correct re-direct. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. There are nine Madame Tussauds spanning three continents. We usually redirect attractions, but there's no clear redirect here. We could disambiguate it, but I'm not sure if we've been doing that for attractions. In this case, it should be easier to just delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:03, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. I see no reason not to disambiguate, as we did with SeaWorld. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:15, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. That's the original Madame T's and a significant London attraction. I don't think a disambig is worth the trouble; no traveller will need that list, but many visitors to London might want to find this. (WT-en) Pashley 17:29, 16 December 2009 (EST)
The others are very much significant attractions—google Madame Tussauds and D.C.'s will come up first. I'm sure plenty of travelers would not even realize the original was in London (I do only after living there). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete or Disambiguate. My first impulse is to agree with Peter to delete. It is just an attraction, and after we delete this a search will return all the articles that mention it, which hopefully will provide the best assistance to the traveller. However, if we are going to redirect, I think it is wrong to assume the traveller is searching for the London attraction. A person searching for the fishermans wharf attraction doesn't deserve to be redirected to a london district, before having to perform a more general search, just to save us some effort writing the disamb. We don't follow the by far the most famous mantra for a disambiguation page do we? --(WT-en) inas 17:45, 16 December 2009 (EST)
    • Even if we did, the one in London is clearly not "by far the most famous" of the locations. Also, the problem with relying on search results is that "Tussauds" is a word very likely to be misspelled, which the search engine doesn't handle well. If we have a disambiguation page, we can set up redirects from likely misspellings (like Madam Tussaud's). (WT-en) LtPowers 08:50, 17 December 2009 (EST)
      • That may have inadvertenly answered a question I posed elsewhere. So WT does set up re-directs for spelling mistakes?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Absolutely, per Project:How to redirect a page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:45, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Merge content with London/Mayfair-Marylebone and Redirect is my first reaction, considering the listing on the page. However, considering that this is a rather famous tourist attraction that is branching out, a disambiguation page would certainly be another way of seeing travel and perhaps put the traveler first. It could even lead into a travel topics about touring London or famous museums and art galleries to visit around the world. The criteria for having at least a redirect probably should be fame. Besides, it will probably come back and haunt us if we delete it now the page has been created. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure why, but I feel like making a disambiguation page with links to the relevant districts (and it needs to be districts in order to be useful) in Amsterdam, Berlin, Las Vegas, London, New York City, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Washington, D.C. and Hollywood. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. I'm basically in agreement with Burmesedays, and would not even expect to find an article with this title on WT because it's an attraction, not a geographic destination. Barring a major change in policy, I think having only a few such attraction articles with no consistent reasoning will be more confusing to WT users, not less. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 18:27, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Hmmmmm, SeaWorld precedence? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:58, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Ouch... this discussion is probably better for Project:Disambiguation pages, but my preference would be to NOT create disambiguation pages for attractions and instead always use redirects, UNLESS the attractions warrant their own articles (such as Disneyworld). In the case of SeaWorld a redirect to Amusement would seem preferable rather than opening a can of worms for determining when an attraction is "famous enough" that a disambiguation page is warranted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:17, 19 December 2009 (EST)
In the case of SeaWorld, how is a redirect to Amusement more helpful to the traveler than a page listing the destinations that have SeaWorlds? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:17, 19 December 2009 (EST)
For me, this is less about "more useful to travelers" than it's about figuring out where to draw a line as to what gets a disambiguation page. If someone bothered to create a page for an attraction it probably makes sense to create a redirect so that a) anyone looking for that attraction in the future will have a pointer to it and b) it won't get created again. If instead we create a disambiguation page it puts us into the uncomfortable position of having to figure out where to draw the line between "useful to travelers" and spam. Does SeaWorld get a disambiguation page? If so, does the Ripley's Believe-it-or-not museum? Does the Hard Rock Cafe? Seems like a slippery slope that we could avoid by just saying "any attraction that does not warrant its own article should not be given a disambiguation page". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Ryan hits the nail on the head I think. If the attraction does not warrant an article, then why disambiguate? Except for very few especially large, important attractions WT has articles about geographic destinations and not attractions. And as Dgulliame states, disambiguating an attraction which you would not expect to have an article according to policy, will create confusion. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Project:The traveller comes first. I understand the slippery slope -- we don't want to become a yellow pages, after all -- but there are certain internationally-known destinations that are specifically sought out by travelers. I can imagine Madame Tussauds being on the cusp of appropriateness, but I think SeaWorld clearly qualifies. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:30, 20 December 2009 (EST)

This ↑ is why I suggested it might be easier to just delete the article. But since we're having this discussion, lets stop having it on the vfd page and move to Project:Disambiguation pages#Non-articles. (The vfd page is for interpreting policy, not deciding it.) Discussion to clarify our disambiguation policies is long overdue anyway (probably because disambiguation is boring). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:39, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete. Per policy, without a consensus to keep an article the article should be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:12, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete all. I'll go further and recommend all images uploaded by this user for deletion—I get hits on tineye for others as well from other all rights reserved sites. They also were improperly uploaded to :en (despite all the ridiculous warnings at the upload page), have extremely resolutions, lack source info, etc. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:39, 30 January 2010 (EST)
On a related note I'm a bit worried about the discrepancy between the English proficiency the user has provided on talk pages, and that of the text uploaded. I've searched Google, and haven't so far been able to locate any phrases used elsewhere, but I would like some assurance before I start fixing up the format on the National Park articles; Yacapana National_Park and Cerros Duida and Marahuaca National Park - so Carolina, could you please confirm that it's your own text, or that you are allowed to use it wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:51, 30 January 2010 (EST)
I have confirmed that much if not all of it is copyrighted work from other websites. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:14, 30 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete all. If there is no reponse shortly on the user talk page to concerns raised there, I would also revert all text edits made. A large effort has been made to engage this user to no effect. The longer it is left, the tougher it will be to clean up.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:26, 30 January 2010 (EST)
    • She responded on Peter's talk page; I wouldn't say there's been no effect. It's possible she hasn't discovered her talk page yet. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:58, 31 January 2010 (EST)
She saw it. She's denying the text copyvios, though, probably from not understanding that plagiarism counts even if you're not going word for word (and translating). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:10, 31 January 2010 (EST)
I would like to remind Mr Man that a policy rationale must be given for votes on this page, otherwise they are considered irrelevant. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:43, 2 February 2010 (EST)
I'm sorry, i don't know; Now I'm for Delete all. (WT-en) Mistertalk 12:00, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Result: All deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:22, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

OK, I'm nominating this one, even though I'm not 100% certain... Should mountain ranges have pages? I know the Alps does, but that is major range. This one seems to be soley within Poland, and I can't say I've ever heard of it before. Applying the old "can you sleep there?" would seem to make it a candidate for deletion too. (WT-en) Nrms 14:28, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Redirect to Małopolska Voivodship (an article which needs a lot of attention, redirecting to itself etc). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:42, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:27, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

It's a beach, so probably not worthy of its own article. (WT-en) Nrms 12:06, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:29, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

A copyvio (from Wikipedia)and somewhat sounds boring.

Agreed it is a mess, but we can either tidy it up, and remove or attribute any copied test. At worst, just blank it and apply the standard template. --(WT-en) inas 20:54, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
Done. It was a full scale copy-paste of a WP article that is in poor shape anyway. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:13, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:32, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Some dude's mug in front of a restaurant window. Image here on en: rather than on shared.

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

With a border and in-image caption, it violates our only simple photography guideline, plus it resides here on en: rather than on shared.

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

A mountain range shared by three states. Most of the information more properly belongs in either Southeast (Brazil), Itatiaia National Park, or other respective city, state, or region articles.

Result: Template:Merge added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm trying to clean up Thailand, and also one travel topic I really don't like. Just look at it-- it's a gigantic link dump of golf facilities from TAT, the Tourist Authority of Thailand. No one is ever going to clean up this mess and make it into something usable, so I suggest we delete it. In case others feel it's necessary, I could also move the listings to the Talk pages of the cities for future reference. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:27, 6 February 2010 (EST)

  • Awful. Empty and redirect to Thailand#Do. The only information I would keep is the golf course association contact details. Put it in the country article along with a short para about playing golf in Thailand.
  • Thailand Golf Courses Association (TGCA) 96 Moo 3 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Road, Kwang Taladbangkhen, Laksi, Bangkok 10210 (Tel: 0 2266 5234 Fax: 0 2552 3783, 0 2973 4606) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:46, 6 February 2010 (EST)
I now wrote a paragraph about Golf in the Do-section of the Thailand article. Also placed the listing there. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:49, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:41, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Only an attraction.

Result: Template:Merge added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:44, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Empty article for spending a week in a tiny town under 10,000 people with no particular attractions to speak of. We don't even have an article for this town yet. I suspect this is a joke. (WT-en) Texugo 21:25, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Recognizable people.

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

According to Project:Bodies of water, articles about bodies of water isn't valid as an article.

Result: Redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Vfd'd for three reasons: 1) it shouldn't be uploaded here on the English site, 2) it violates the people in photos policy, and 3) the uploader stated that it was uncopyrighted and released into the public domain, but this is unverifiable, and Tineye led me to this page where it a copyright notice shows it to be property of Guia Geográfico.

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 11:53, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think all images uploaded at en are now being automatically deleted. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:12, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete I think copy vio is given. (WT-en) jan 12:27, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Not an article. It is a building in Brussels.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:50, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

  • Just Redirect it; no need for a discussion. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:10, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
  • In which case it would be nice if someone actually did the work required to merge the article into Brussels, rather than just talking about it.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:29, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Done. Merged into Brussels.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:41, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Sorry, since you nominated it for deletion, I assumed nothing there was worth keeping. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:54, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

A river. (WT-en) Shep 15:03, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. We already have budget sections in both our eat and sleep sections in our main article, so anything along that line is immediately redundant. We have attractions and prices in the main article - the reader can determine what is within their budget relative to the experience. We already give the full range of transport and discount ticket options in the main article. What could be placed here that won't just be a duplicate of our primary content?

It will always be a temptation for every hotel and hostel to list here, as well as the primary article. --(WT-en) inas 16:59, 18 February 2010 (EST)

  • Delete Opens the doors for redundancies and will primarily attract hostels. Saving money can be part of the sections in the main article as no traveller likes to waste money. (WT-en) jan 10:15, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:56, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Clearly not a destination, (WT-en) ClausHansen 11:08, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Delete. We've got a few highway itinerary articles, but a mere 880km of generic inter-city freeway doesn't look like a promising basis for another. There's certainly nothing to salvage in its current form, so it'd need starting from scratch regardless. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 00:29, 12 February 2010 (EST)
Delete. Same reasons. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:07, 14 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:53, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Not sure what to do with this one.. it doesn't even look a little bit like a traditional Wikivoyage article. .--(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:54, 23 February 2010 (EST)

  • Redirect to North Lebanon.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:56, 23 February 2010 (EST)
  • Redirect to Tripoli - It is a 0.2 square km refugee camp mostly destroyed in the 2007 conflict and currently under reconstruction. I can't find any evidence of the existence of any attraction or place to stay (including those mentioned in the current article); it doesn't really seem like a place tourists should go. If we do find any evidence to the contrary, it could still probably be summed up succinctly in a Get out listing in the Tripoli article, since it's only 4 miles from downtown Tripoli. (WT-en) Texugo 21:41, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Tripoli. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

I believe this is a less common spelling for wikipedia:Mala, Kerala (my google-fu for obscure locations is getting good here). Mala looks awful small, though—I'm not sure it meets our article criteria. Since the content is nonexistent, it would have been fine to just speedy delete, but I have instead speedy redirected it to Kochi (region). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:35, 4 March 2010 (EST)
Perhaps the person that started the page intended it to be a travel topic about festivals in South Asia and south asian themed festivals in the rest of the World? (WT-en) Tarr3n 04:59, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Central Kerala. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:14, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm not really sure what this page is supposed to achieve, but Japan is the only country with such a page, and it doesn't look useful. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:49, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Ah, I see I'm mistaken. Other countries are listed as Talk pages. But what is the purpose of Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import/Reference index? Is it (still) useful? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:53, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import provides the background information. It seems that it had some use in the very earliest days of Wikivoyage before there was even a complete set of country articles, but (1) the last factbook-based article was removed in 2006, and (2) I can see no good reason to keep a 2002 mirror around when the real thing is online and continuously updated. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 00:13, 15 January 2010 (EST)
... in fact, I'll go one step further and submit for discussion:
Keep - reason moved to discussion re all factbook pages - (WT-en) Huttite 18:54, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

The reference index describes itself as "This page exists to keep track of how far de-factbookizing has progressed" -- a task that was largely completed six years ago, and fully completed in mid-2006. Mirroring the factbook wasn't particularly popular at the time, judging by the discussion, but it's even less so now: the import is severely out of date, the CIA World Factbook itself is still freely available and routinely updated online, and I simply see no value in maintaining pages that are unused, unusable, and can't productively be edited. Additionally, since the Wikivoyage_Talk: namespace is indexed by search engines†, these pages do show up in search results, which is needlessly confusing. I'm only proposing deletion of the factbook import itself, not any of the discussion pages.

(† I personally think this is also a problem, but it's a broader issue that can only be resolved by the tech team.) - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. It's an artifact & unnecessary for today's site. I also don't think there is anything or any record lost in the delete, since the basic info remains available through the CIA World Factbook. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep - The factbook pages are an archive of source factoids. Besides, it is not policy to delete these factbook archive pages, rather great care was taken to preserve them - Japan's one was preserved as an article sub-page rather than a talk sub-page, because it was one of the first to be done. They are doing no harm and deletion would not save space because the deleted pages are still retained by the server. The purpose of Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import/Reference index is to stop these pages being orphaned and keep track of what articles were defactbooked. Also, the factbook pages provide the original context for maps and flags as well as some useful documentation about how countries are administered. In the last few days I consulted the Puerto Rico factbook article to understand how a country is best regionalised. I dare say that many other factbooks still are useful for similar reasons, so they should be kept. - (WT-en) Huttite 18:44, 16 January 2010 (EST)
I'm not saying that the factbook itself is not useful, but only that our unofficial, eight year old mirror is not useful. The factbook source is the same place as ever , and unlike our copy is still up to date. There's no need to keep track of what articles were defactbooked any more, because it's "all of them". - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 22:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Huttite hits the nail on the head, saying that that all history is maintained anyway, if there is any reason to ever go back to this info, it can be recovered easily. The active pages on the site should be kept current, keeping this stuff around is confusing to new users, and unnecessary. --(WT-en) inas 17:16, 17 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. It's old, we don't use it anymore, I see no reason to keep it. And if we need its info, we could always look it up from an updated source. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:18, 18 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. As said above, I don't see any reason at all to keep obsolete archive copies. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:47, 4 February 2010 (EST)
  • I'm ambivalent about keeping vs. deleting factbook pages, but if consensus is to delete all of them that's a potentially big job, so could a few more people chime in before we undertake deletion of a few hundred articles? Per there are 691 results, although some of those are probably false positives. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:01, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
    • I would have commented but consensus seemed clear. I see no reason to keep an out-of-date archive of material available elsewhere. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:36, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
      • Consensus is definitely clear from those who have commented, but given the fact that we're talking about deleting 300+ articles it would be nice to get some indication that a wider audience has read this discussion and is OK with what's going on just so that we're 100% certain we won't get part way done and have to stop or (worse) have to undo the action once it's complete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:29, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
        • Does anyone else have any comment? This discussion is several months old, so pending further objection all remaining factbook pages are gonna go boom. Speak now or forever hold your peace... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:02, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Given the lack of comment I think consensus to delete is clear. The following is a list of every (I think) article with "Factbook" in the name. This first seven may or may not be deletion candidates per this VFD, the remainder clearly are.

Possibly delete:

Delete:

-- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:23, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Note that the "possibly delete" articles were re-listed as VFD candidates. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Orphaned stub about a hotel listing, which is already properly placed in Lushoto article. Not sure if it should be redirected or deleted. – (WT-en) Vidimian 08:25, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

If it's the name of a place, we redirect, but I believe we delete the names of hotels and other businesses so that we don't encourage the creation of such articles/redirects. So, Delete. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:38, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:04, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Glad to see that we are following through on that discussion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:24, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) jan 07:25, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:26, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think the southeast Asian itineraries should be renamed, the article names are boring. -(WT-en) SnappyHip 13:45, 6 May 2010 (GST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:04, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not been edited in over a year. Per current guidelines (Template:Outlineitinerary) that's enough to trigger deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:41, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:04, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not been edited in over a year. Per current guidelines (Template:Outlineitinerary) that's enough to trigger deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:44, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. But also merge perhaps? There is some information worth salvaging perhaps into the South Island article. But if no one bothers to do so, lets just delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:24, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
I looked through the first half of the listings, and aside from the fact that the Greymouth article mentions nothing about jade (which is a tough factoid to usefully merge) everything else is already covered in the linked articles, so I don't think there's much to merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:09, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete - I would like to use this comment space for a blatant plug for my idea that itineraries should initially be constructed within the region article which contains them. Only when they have content past the outline stage should they be permitted to have their own article. This ensures we can nurse it into a good itinerary (maybe even with the a better name and scope) or merge the content back into the region. --(WT-en) inas 19:00, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
Sounds good, but let's have that discussion on the relevant policy page - Project:Itineraries? Or is there already a proposal somewhere else? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
I think the original discussion occurred in the pub. Anyway, given your token of support, I have made the proposal in Project:Itineraries#Itinerary Nursery --(WT-en) inas 22:27, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 07:53, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 07:53, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Note that I left the discussion page as there were some useful discussions on it, but if that needs to go as well it can also be VFD'd. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 07:53, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Recognizable faces. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:01, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
  • The image is on shared:, so we can't delete it from en:. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:59, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: No action. This image is on shared: and cannot be handled from English Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 07:53, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete - A contentless article, worked on in depth by the Cap'n, and difficult to see how it can ever develop within our xl framework. --(WT-en) inas 22:05, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused thumbnail image that is of no use for travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:56, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of poor quality. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
I won't vote to keep, but if anyone else wants to keep it, I can place it in an article. --(WT-en) inas 07:56, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep - unless a better free image can be found to replace it and can be used on the Blue Mountains page (or somewhere else appropriate). (WT-en) JRG 09:21, 8 May 2010 (EDT)
In addition to being unused and of poor quality, also note that this image is missing a license and the uploader has uploaded images of questionable origin. I think this one is a very clear case for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:30, 8 May 2010 (EDT)
I don't see the unused as an issue - we could well do with a photo of that area. Poor quality? Yes, but we do sometimes use poor images while waiting for better ones. I does show what the entrance to the tunnel looks like (and if anybody is ever out new Lithgow/Newnes, this is a great walk through the old railway tunnel). Copyvio - well if it is a copyvio, it is eligible for a speedy delete. Tineye returns nothing. The user has uploaded another historical image - which may well be so old as to be free from copyright, and another silly image, but I don't see any conclusive evidence they have uploaded other copyvio images. The unusual shape and low resolution often indicate copyvio. However, if anything the image looks a bit unprofessional to be a copyvio. --(WT-en) inas 20:46, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused and looks like a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not travel related. --(WT-en) inas 19:38, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what looks like a restaurant interior. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:14, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused & blurry image of a bun on a plate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:15, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Keep. Per the January VFD factbook pages have been deleted, but I'm listing this here as it wasn't clear from that VFD whether this page was included or not. I say keep this article - it's harmless and a discussion about how Wikivoyage country articles got their start. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. Correctly phrased as an historical article. No need to delete this. --(WT-en) inas 20:36, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. I actually noted this particular page in the original VfD proposal as outside its scope, but it was behind a renamed link ([[...|discussion pages]]), which in retrospect was not as clear as it should have been. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 00:00, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Keep. Per the January VFD factbook pages have been deleted, but I'm listing this here as it wasn't clear from that VFD whether this page was included or not. Delete if Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import is deleted, keep otherwise. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. Talk page for above. --(WT-en) inas 20:37, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Just a list. Where is this article going? There are too many trails in the world. Looks like it will be a long list. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:47, 7 December 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure a page listing a lot of trails all over the place is useful, but it brings up a question: These trail articles that are linked here, are they essentially itinerary articles? or something else? An itinerary serves as a way to fit in seeing certain things in a certain order and time frame and leaves the descriptions to other articles, typically. An article for a hiking trails essentially exists to give distances and describe things along a set trail. I don't know if trails make good itinerary articles, but I do kind of like the idea of trail articles, since they give a chance to give more detail than a general national park article would.(WT-en) Texugo 09:35, 7 December 2009 (EST)
I wouldnt think of them as Itineraries in the usual sense, and they are a bit sparse on information at present, but they could become something useful if there is enough input. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 13:47, 8 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. Trail articles are good, and welcome. They should be linked to the relevant articles and locations for the traveller to find. Nobody would start looking for a trail at the global level. If this is an administrative list that someone wants to maintain, then it should at least move out of the main namespace. --(WT-en) inas 17:04, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Tramping in New Zealand actually has useful information about long distance walks in New Zealand. It isn't just an index, but an introduction to the topic.
Long_distance_walking_in_Europe limits itself to a handful of well defined walks, where as this list is somewhat arbitrary. The trails are fine, but best linked from the regions and destinations where they are relevant. We should demonstrate a very clear traveller benefit before allowing an article that is just a list.
If we really really decide that an index of these things is necessary - surely a Category is a better way to accomplish it than a manually updated index? --(WT-en) inas 00:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to List of itineraries, move the items there, and slap itinerary tags on them. A trail article would seem to be as clear an itinerary article as we could possibly have. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)
A fine solution, Peter. Why didn't I think of that? (WT-en) Pashley 01:26, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Redirected to List of itineraries. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:35, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

The base is only open to current military US personnel. The only way for civilians to visit is as part of an organized tour for which you need reservations and which only occurs on the first and third Friday of each month from 9AM-2:30PM. If you did visit, you wouldn't be allowed to just wander around-- you'd See and Do only what they allowed you to as part of the tour, eat lunch and shop wherever they take you, and there is no lodging for civilians. I doubt that non-citizens can visit at all. Anyway, it is clearly not an article-- it really doesn't deserve more than a couple of lines at Lancaster (California) or Mojave.

  • Merge and redirect - (WT-en) Texugo 21:31, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect - clearly an attraction and not an article. An easy one. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:13, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge template added for Mojave. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:49, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Delete and merge little bits with Branson. (WT-en) Shep 15:08, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

We shouldn't delete and merge; merge and redirect is the proper procedure. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:57, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge template added for Branson. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:54, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Anyone familar with Chile? would Cochamó or Cochamó Valley make most sense to keep? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:05, 25 December 2009 (EST)

Keep and merge the 2 articles. This question should probably be discussed on the article talk pages using merge tags, rather than here, as a VFD. A page under both article names can exist, even though the same article is served; that is what a redirect page is for. - (WT-en) Huttite 14:53, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Result: Merge template added for Cochamó Valley. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Am I right? That Mountains and hills aren't appropriate for being an article but National parks are an exception? This article makes me think it's kind of preview for the book listed in the reference section (-.-)

  • The content reads very like something copied from a book I agree. I am not sure if Manaslu merits an article or not, and there is a discussion on the talk page about where the content might be merged. Generally, you are right that we do not have articles about mountains unless they are major attractions or national parks.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:38, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete and redirect - The fact that the text references specific pages from a book leads me to believe it is probably not compatible with our copyleft. Redirect to the region, and later if enough information appears to overburden that article we can think about giving it its own page at that time. (WT-en) Texugo 13:01, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge template added for Annapurna. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:51, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

It looks like someone attempted to make a regional article out of a city. This is listed as a city in Hokuto when it is actually part of Hokuto City. There is a Takane here, but there is also one in Niigata, and it's part of at least 2 other place names from what I found. I don't know whether it would be a useful redirect or just better off deleted. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:15, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Not really sure what to do here. Takane was merged into Hokuto in 2004, and while I'm unfamiliar with the area, quite often the old towns are actually much more coherent destinations than these sprawling administrative "cities" like 600 km2 Hokuto.
There's been a whole bunch of these lately (see also Kishine, Hamadayama, etc), it appears we've got another English class in Japan on our hands... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:06, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I don't know this area either. From researching it, the city seems to encompass most (all?) of the Kiyosato Plateau, which was also created by the same user. Kiyosato returns a lot more travel information about this area, such as: , , , etc. Maybe redirecting Hokuto to the Kiyosato Plateau would be better. As for Takane... I still don't know about redirect or deletion. It seems to be as obscure as the one in Niigata, and disambiguation sounds pointless. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:35, 8 November 2009 (EST)
  • There is no "consensus to keep" this article, and it's been listed on the VFD page for six months. If someone wants to do something with it other than delete, speak up - we need to wrap this one up. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete There is no content in the article, and it seems that this area's sites were added to the Kiyosato Plateau article. Whether or not it should be there or under Hokuto is another discussion best left to someone familiar with the area, but Takane itself does not appear to be famous, and since there is one in Niigata as well, deletion seems best. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:26, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:54, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Looking at the article's talk page, it is a few years overdue for a deletion. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:50, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Keep. It is a valid index, perhaps helpful to some, certainly harmless to the rest. (WT-en) Pashley 17:43, 16 December 2009 (EST)

If this is meant to be an index, though, I think it may need a name change. "Parks" are found in most cities, while National Parks are larger and more manageable. It would also eliminate the overlap between "Amusement Parks", "Skate Parks", or whatever other kind of parks someone may try to link to. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Keep, but possibly convert to a disambiguation page for different categories of parks, then have a list page for each category, in which case the content would go into National parks or possibly Ecoparks, as there may be some which are not national parks as most people would expect, such as Marine protected areas, which may be of similar interest. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:09, 18 December 2009 (EST)
  • I would vote delete on this one as it seems similar to the "Downtown" article we debated a while back (final decision was that it was too broad to warrant even a disambiguation page). Since there is no clear consensus to keep, and since it's been five months, does anyone strongly object to deletion? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:00, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Does not follow Wikivoyage templates; use of first person; not clear why a mountain merits being a separate article; listings incomplete, etc. I have already deleted one copyvio para. Could be GET OUT Ancona? (WT-en) Shep 01:24, 22 February 2010 (EST)

  • There is no consensus to keep, and it has been over three months. If anyone feels that this should not be deleted, please speak up. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:04, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

The very similar topic Amusements was deleted a couple months ago, and this one seems the same. The talk page proposes where this article could go, but do we really want it? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:50, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I personally don't really want it, but that's me. I wouldn't mention Shenzhen's famous theme parks (or, for that matter, any Disney establishment) except to warn people off what I consider overpriced and tacky.
However, lots of people do want to find these, and we obviously have a contributor who wants to build an index of them. My reaction is by all means plunge forward. It seems to me this is a clear keep, a valid travel topic, though it needs discussion on its talk page of what the exact scope should be and whether there might be a better name. (WT-en) Pashley
Delete. We had a contributor who wanted to build another list. Lets just leave WP to build the lists of these things, we are adding no value to the traveller here. --(WT-en) inas 17:49, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Not sure. I don't like the current title, and it could use a lot of cleanup, but there's certainly value to the traveler in a list of amusement parks. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • 'Rename to Amusement parks? They have to be popular with some travellers or they wouldn't still exist, so I'm with Pashley and LtPowers that they have value.

Theme parks would be a subset of amusement parks. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:20, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Check the history, this is just going back to where it was. Someome started to build a list a few years ago - the whole idea has failed. --(WT-en) inas 06:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Delete No value, will stay messy and when i look for Amusement i look in the specific city article and not an incomplete list. (WT-en) jan 06:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete Don't see this ever becoming useful, if consensus is a keep then at least rename to Amusement parks. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 06:23, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
  • There's no consensus to keep, so unless anyone else has an opinion this is a deletion candidate. Speak now, or forever hold your peace... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:09, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete Cities & Towns of the indian state Kerala are lately battle grounds by eager indian editors. Mostly they are started as stubs (not even a template and it takes big efforts to keep them clean from touts. I prefer to delete all of them if they lack a minimum standard. Before it start to do it, i wanted to discuss it. (WT-en) jan 07:29, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
    • I don't like the the precedent; real places shouldn't be deleted. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:33, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
LtPowers: Based on the pcv a lot of times by several admins real places are being deleted e.g. Memmingen (bigger German city in Bavaria) because the starting point is nonsense and it's only stubs that attract touts (see Kazantip as a recent example). It takes much effort to bring them to a minimum level. (WT-en) jan 10:14, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
I think it is a policy issue. We should resolve on the policy page. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with (WT-en) jan that an article is created purely with content that would be deleted, may as well be deleted. The effort required to recreate it with content later is insignificant, and there is a negative value in an entirely blank article with just a template. If the article has any content though, it should be kept. --(WT-en) inas 20:43, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:13, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Merge and Delete - this is not a travel topic, rather in a spammy sort of advert that we delete regularly. Any content here worth keeping can be easily merged into Andalucia --(WT-en) inas 22:56, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

This supposed itinerary is neither an itinerary nor does it have anything specifically for students. It merely duplicates some listings from the main Santo Domingo article and even has some things that aren't in the main article but should be. I posted a note to that effect on the talk page a few weeks ago but no one replied, so I'm putting it here.

  • Merge and delete - (WT-en) Texugo 11:08, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge and delete for the same reasons given above. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
  • "Merge and delete" shouldn't be an option; Merge and redirect is the only proper method. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:25, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Why on earth redirect that article title?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:50, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
The article history must be maintained for attribution purposes; otherwise it's a copyright violation to simply copy someone else's text into a different article. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:45, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
There is some sense in that, but if I created an article with a couple of salvageable listings and called it 46 and half hours in February in Santo Domingo when you don't have a girlfriend and you only have 60 dollars, I would hope that it gets merged and deleted; a simple attribution note on the talk page would be sufficient. In either case, you can't get around putting an attribution note on the talk page, which sounds like yet another argument for a talk page attribution section. (WT-en) Texugo 22:18, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge and Delete. I don't agree with (WT-en) LtPowers that we need to keep the redirect for attribution in this case. There are only a couple of contributors to the text, and it makes more sense to just reference them in merge edit, then it does to keep a redirect. The attribution quality is better - but possibly still not sufficient. It is an argument for some sort of policy on how we attribute - but not an argument for putting it on the talk page (which is for meta-discussion, not for attribution). --(WT-en) inas 23:12, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:18, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Per the January VFD factbook pages have been deleted, but I'm listing this here as it wasn't clear from that VFD whether this page was included or not. Since there are no factbook articles left this article no longer serves any purpose. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. This article no longer has any purpose. The history is kept elsewhere. --(WT-en) inas 20:38, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:26, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Per the January VFD factbook pages have been deleted, but I'm listing this here as it wasn't clear from that VFD whether this page was included or not. Since there are no factbook articles left this article no longer serves any purpose. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:26, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Per the January VFD factbook pages have been deleted, but I'm listing this here as it wasn't clear from that VFD whether this page was included or not. Delete if Project:How to de-factbook a country page is deleted, keep otherwise. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Talk page for above. --(WT-en) inas 20:39, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:26, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. It is a neighborhood of Oslo, but doesn't fit the districts that are proposed. Also it is formatted particularly bad. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:51, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Oslo or some district thereof, if it's not needed in the hierarchy. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:33, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Oslo. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:30, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

A bunch of JR station/ward articles

edit

Perhaps a university class is creating these articles the last few days, I'm not sure. Most should probably be merged somewhere and deleted or redirected, though in some cases it is not clear where, unless someone wants to take the time to nicely districtify Yokohama.

  1. Keio horinouchi - a station in Hachioji
  2. Center-minami - a station in Tzuzuki ward, Yokohama.
  3. Mizonokuchi - a station in Kawasaki, Kanagawa prefecture.
  4. Kouhokuku, better written Kouhoku Ward - a ward of Yokohama.
  5. Kikuna - a station in Kouhoku Ward (above), Yokohama.
  6. Hiyoshi - another station in Kouhoku Ward, Yokohama.
  7. Kounandai - a station in Kounan Ward, Yokohama
  8. Kamoi - a station in Midori Ward, Yokohama
  9. Sakuragicho - a station in Naka Ward, Yokohama.

There may be others I've missed, and there may be others created soon, if my hunch is correct. (WT-en) Texugo 00:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

Districtifying the second-largest city in Japan might be too much to tackle at once. However, all of those station names seem to be unique, so redirecting all of them to Yokohama shouldn't cause confusion for other destinations. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
I was wondering why the number of orphan pages dropped suddenly, then I find them listed here! I would suggest that each of the articles be tagged with a Merge notice pointing to Yokohama and the list of articles to be merged then merging and districtifying be discussed on the Yokohama talk page. When districtification of Yokohama reaches a point where merging and redirecting these articles makes sense then redirect the articles to the appropriate districts. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)
I would probably delete at least Hiyoshi. Someone looking up Hiyoshi will most likely want to find Hiyoshi Taisha in Otsu rather than Yokohama. I'm not really a fan of creating redirects for every station name in Japan. It just seems like a rather fruitless task. For ward names and districts within cities (like Kouhokuku), I honestly think it's better just to delete them, with some exceptions (like Shibuya, Harajuku, etc.). This one appears to be unique, but so many of them are generic and found in more than one location in Japan. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Speaking of Kouhokuku, the only thing unique about this name is that the creator chose this particular way of writing it. It is better written Kōhoku-ku, and when speaking about it people often drop the -ku part. In addition, I can guarantee there are dozens of places named Kōhoku, including　a community in eastern Osaka-fu, an area in northern Tokyo, and Kohoku, Saga-ken. Given that, I think a redirect would be pretty useless. (WT-en) Texugo 22:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Hello Texugo & other editors. Thank you for starting this discussion. I am part of the small effort to introduce more local places by locals on this nice web resource. I / we may need to apologize on one hand for some obvious errors. On the other hand(as I wrote above for Kameo), while I appreciate the need for oversight and realize that the suggestions have good intentions (such as making the site easier to use and navigate) and may adhere to larger Wiki standards that were not followed, I worry that the locals' efforts and then editing actions on the Wiki Travel Japan section recently (such as the editing of Sugamo and Komagome) may not be in the best interest of the larger Wiki Travel development. Are we trying to make Wiki Travel Japan into a Lonely Planet type guide book? I hope we can do better than Lonely Planet, etc. and introduce more and more local places... properly. To do this, the students / volunteers certainly need help, but at this point in this Wiki Travel project, I would prefer that we give more leeway to locals trying to introduce their cities... That means leeway with language use (correct errors but respect phrasing - No need to edit and then describe the price of Soba in a sarcastic way - although I did think it was funny) and leeway with the way things are categorized (there's no need to lump Sugamo into Toshima Ward, is there?). In short, let's err on the side of caution when we see an entry by a non-native speaker here. This will allow more and more Japanese to take part in Wiki Travel which seems necessary, especially at this point in its development. Sorry for the long memo & thanks for reading & considering. Looking forward to hearing back. By black turtleneck

We welcome contributions from all users, but the issue with these are that they are not cities: they are stations and parts of cities that already exist. Generally, wards do not get articles. If the district or ward is in Yokohama (for example), then you can add the information about that district or ward to the Yokohama page. There is no need to create a page for Kikuna, Sakuragicho, etc. We only split articles when they become too large and after discussion has taken place.
There is no limit on what local places can be added, so the locals of these places are welcome to continue adding content. We certainly do hope to provide much more information than Lonely Planet! The information simply needs to be put in the correct place. Most (or even all) of the locations they are adding already have city articles. If you know these locals, it would be greatly appreciated if you could tell them to add their content to the city article rather than creating new articles. It's good to know what is going on. Your response is appreciated! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:59, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Hello ChubbyWimbus. Thanks for the reply. I think I understand your point about local places. There should be a reasonable limit, I agree, but I wonder how that applies to the Tokyo Metro Area? I think this might be a special case warranting consideration, especially given the nature of the way Tokyo and other cities have developed as "station/cities." Are you saying that Wikivoyage Japan is a collection of pages about "Cities" - is it referring to 市 Shi - as an official determination, which requires a certain population and designation? I'm not sure if I am entitled to make this counter-point being a very new user without any history or recognition by the Wiki Organization, but here are a few things on my mind... When a visitor (or a resident wants to use Wiki Travel, some may start with a large city and look around in there, but I have a feeling many others would enter the name of a specific station or town. If Wiki redirects them to a larger city, the feeling would be one of disappointment in that case, wouldn't it? Or maybe more satisfaction if the city is actually covered in Wiki. Thus, I do feel that many more areas should be given their own page and ask that Wiki loosen the devoted page requirement. Obvious examples are Kourakuen or Sugamo in Tokyo from the perspective of a "guidebook." Aside from those major areas, I see some value in devoted pages for many other areas as well. We know that "cities" arise around stations. Examples abound in Tokyo (Machida, Shin-Yokohama, Shimokita, Kanazawa-Hakkei, Kichijoji, Sangenjyaya, Futakotamagawa...) In one of the largest metro areas in the world (the largest?), these "station/cities" seem to merit their own page. When we get down to the small station level, I can understand the discussion on merging. One deleted was Hamadayama, for example. Even though this does not have a "city" designation and is, as we know, not a major train station, I wonder if Hamadayama's sheer population and number of restaurants, parks, temples, etc. would merit its own page. More to the point, I ask this: if we can't search for these "cities" (towns? urban areas? stations?) on Wiki Trvel, then where can we search for them? As far as Tokyo Metro area goes this seems the obvious route to making Wiki Travel a tool that surpasses Lonely Planet and can position Wiki as the go-to tool for English info on Japan. Thanks again for our talk as we collaborate. BT

I would begin by checking the Tokyo article to see if the area you are adding information about is already covered in one of the district articles. I was not part of the Tokyo districting discussions, but I think every area is covered somewhere. Once you find where it belongs, then add the information to that district.
If you know the area and feel that there is a need to separate sections, there are ways to do that without creating new pages. See Takahashi: The Fukiya area is separated from the rest of the content, yet it is still in the Takahashi article. I did this because it is often visited as a separate destination and there is enough distance between the inner city and Fukiya to warrant giving it a subheading. If so much information was added to Takahashi that the article became too large, then I would consider creating districts, and Fukiya would get an article. I don't think that will happen in this case.
I think that's the best way to show districts without dividing the article into districts. If the article grows, having these subsections will make it easier to divide it, but if it does not become large enough, they still serve a useful purpose for travellers. Other examples of these types of city articles in Japan include Kurashiki, Hiroshima, Okayama, Shimonoseki. All of these cities only have one article but important districts are identified. Every city/area is different, but the process is basically the same. If you think that Hamadayama should be identified, perhaps this is the best way to do it. The article that it is part of currently (Tokyo/Suginami) does not have many attractions listed, so things to do, see, eat, etc. from the Hamadayama area would be good to add to the article, if you know the area. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:29, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I looked up some more of these, and the more I think about it, the more I think they should be deleted after the merge. The following all have at least one other location with the same name (and of equal unimportance):

  • Kouhokuku (at least one more exists. Neither are important enough for disambiguation)
  • Hiyoshi (There are more famous places with this name)
  • Kounandai (There is at least one more in Chiba Prefecture, neither important enough for a disambiguation page)
  • Mizonokuchi (there is one in Wakayama Prefecture, neither important) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:19, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Hello Texugo. Thank you to start this discussion. I made a page about Keio Horinouchi. Keio Horinouchi isn't belong Kanagawa but Tokyo. I think there is no need to collect these place. If a foreigner wants to go to Keio Horinouchi, he look it up first. Then there isn't this page on wikivoyage, he would have to retry to look up in other words, and If he find it, there are few imformation about keio Horinouchi because this area far from urban center and not popular. I made this page from this reason: when some foreigners visit this place, I want them to enjoy it. —The preceding comment was added by 210.253.169.229 (talk • contribs)

  • It sounds like the consensus is that each of these should get a merge template. Can someone familiar with Japan take care of this and then archive this discussion? It's been six months, so we should wrap this discussion up. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
I'll get working on those. For now I'm redirecting them, but only ChubbyWimbus has weighed in on the redirect vs. delete issue (with some good arguments, I think; I'd be inclined to delete at least the four mentioned above) — any last thoughts? - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 00:24, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
Thanks. In case it's not clear from my comment above, I'm OK with delete or redirect and will defer to those who actually know the area. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:41, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: All articles have been redirected or had merge tags added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:35, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Poland Articles

edit

So what should we do about these, it's all various long lists of places, what to do about them?

  1. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Lakes and Coastlines
  2. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Metro Areas and Little Pearls
  3. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Mountains
  4. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:National Parks
  5. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:Spas
  6. Could not find IsPartOf or IsIn in Poland:UNESCO World Heritage Sites

- --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:00, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Delete All Does Poland need all these lists? 130.49.146.44 17:04, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Poland:UNESCO World Heritage Sites should just be redirected to UNESCO_World_Heritage_list#Poland, perhaps with some of its text copied there to improve the main list.
I'm not sure about the others. We do not usually build such lists. Trying to be a "yellow pages" listing everything is a non-goal, something we explicitly avoid. However, given that someone has taken the trouble to build those lists, it strikes me as foolish to just delete them. Can anything useful be salvaged from them? (WT-en) Pashley 08:11, 19 December 2009 (EST)
It seems like these lists came from the main page under Cities. Someone moved them from the list there, as it made the Cities list too long. But I think some of them could fit under an "Other Destinations" header. Some others could be moved to their regions. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 08:37, 19 December 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and delete is, I think, the appropriate action per policies. But the merging will be a significant task... Mountains should probably be deleted outright (the ranges it links to are mostly redirects, anyway). National Parks should be spread among the OD sections of the Poland article and its regions. Pashley is right about the UNESCO list. "Metro Areas and Little Pearls" should be re-merged to the cities lists at Poland and its subregions. Lake districts to OD lists for Poland/regions (delete the rest). Spas... travel topic? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:30, 19 December 2009 (EST)
I merged Poland:Metro Areas and Little Pearls with the cities lists on the corresponding regions. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:31, 31 December 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and Delete Does not make sense to keep them separate. (WT-en) jan 07:04, 14 January 2010 (EST)
  • In five months no one has stepped up to merge these. Does anyone who know Poland want to stick merge tags on them? Otherwise there's no consensus to keep, so delete would be the default action. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. After five months there was no consensus to keep, and the articles were little more than lists of sites. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:43, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

What is the idea behind this article? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:47, 10 February 2010 (EST)

  • Delete this encyclopaedic list. If it is needed by editors, it should be moved to the Wikivoyage: namespace. --(WT-en) inas 17:02, 18 February 2010 (EST)
    See also Talk:List of American states, which survived a VFD ages ago, as well as List of Mexican states. If the list of Brazilian states is up for deletion then it probably makes sense to be consistent and re-list the others for VFD as well. Now that we have better regional breakdowns there is less of a need for such articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:16, 18 February 2010 (EST)
  • Delete all three Redirect all (Per Ryan). I agree that these pages have outlasted their usefulness, as we now have well organized regional breakdowns. Also, Wikipedia maintains such lists for our use if necessary, and that is in line with their goals, not with ours. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:52, 18 February 2010 (EST)
  • Redirect to Brazil. Re-reading the discussion at Talk:List of American states, that article was at one point #27 on Special:Popularpages (which apparently no longer exists). Assuming we may have a not-insignificant number of people coming to these pages from search engines, a redirect will be a nicer entry point to the site. Separate VFDs should be set up for these, but we also have:
-- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:42, 18 February 2010 (EST)
Incidentally, whatever happened to Special:Popularpages? Seems like that would be useful. (WT-en) Texugo 23:51, 18 February 2010 (EST)
Delete all. I am not sure I see the point of redirecting any of those as they are such unlikely search terms. But I guess a redirect does no harm.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:56, 18 February 2010 (EST)
I was curious about how likely someone would be to search for the US article so I did some digging. Without access to IB's web traffic logs I'm not sure if there's an easy way to find out how much traffic we actually get, but the List of American states article is the #1 result in a Google search for "list of american states", and based on some rough estimations using Google adwords there are probably at least 100-200 people a day making that query. Obviously if we create a redirect the number will eventually go down, but it seems like it would be a shame to send that many people to a "this article does not exist" page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:24, 19 February 2010 (EST)
Even if, in fact, the article doesn't exist?
Google will update the search results within a few days if it gets an error, and replace the number one result with some other (wikipedia?) result that actually gives people the information they are looking for. Wikivoyage is a strong google result on the basis of its quality travel guides. We don't need to resorting to getting traffic by bait and switch. --(WT-en) inas 00:55, 19 February 2010 (EST)
If someone is looking for a list of US states a redirect to the US article will still provide them with that information, so it's not exactly a bait & switch; besides, as you've said, Google should update in a couple of days and the article will drop in the search results. Additionally, Google rankings are partially based on sites that link to that article, and since those likely won't update it would be good to provide some useful information for anyone clicking on them. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:05, 19 February 2010 (EST)
Google will update much more quickly if we delete the article entirely. I don't believe that if I was searching for a list, that the U.S. article would meet the criteria. It has layout, images, and I can't just cut and paste it. I strongly think we should ignore considerations like google rank when deciding whether to delete. We should leave that to the touts, and focus on building a better, well structured guide which will rank highly on its merits. --(WT-en) inas 17:08, 21 February 2010 (EST)
This may be better handled as a larger policy discussion - the current Project:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting calls for redirecting non-articles specifically for SEO purposes ("Redirecting non-articles, when possible, is usually preferred to deletion because... redirects may help with search engine optimization"), although we make exceptions for cases where doing so might encourage spam or touting. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 21 February 2010 (EST)
Yeah, when we put the information somewhere else, it will help people find it - search engines too. When we are deleting the information, I don't think the policy guideline had in mind that we redirect the page just because it ranks well. --(WT-en) inas 00:43, 22 February 2010 (EST)
re: Texugo - it seems that IB has disabled Special:Popularpages. It looks like all of the Wikimedia sites have done the same. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:48, 19 February 2010 (EST)

I don't get it; there's not even close to a brazillion states in that list. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:15, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Re Ryan's reponse to mine - Oh my. I hope IB dont find out we are close to deleting that article. All that Adsense gone :). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:25, 19 February 2010 (EST)

  • Delete All The lists may rank high on google, but with a redirect, you don't get a list on our country pages as the search implies, and Wikivoyage is explicitly against lists, no? Someone searching for a list of US States is probably not searching for travel information anyway. They're probably doing homework for their 4th grade geography class or something. I have to agree with Inas that we can't just have links to popular google searches when the information is not something we offer or want to offer. Wikipedia has redirects to pages that doesn't give the information the redirect implies, and that's just annoying. It's better to just delete. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:44, 22 February 2010 (EST)
That may not happen. .
There are lots of things we could put as part of WT that would require little maintenance, and do no harm. I don't think that is justification enough to keep them. They should be evidently useful, and consistent with our travel guide goals. --(WT-en) inas 22:37, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
    • China is complicated in a lot of ways, not least the political system. At the level of hierarchy just below national, where other countries have at most three types of things (e.g. US has States, a Federal District and some territories), China has four: provinces, municipalities, autonomous regions and special administrative regions (SARs). The differences can be significant to travellers; for example, the SARs have their own currencies and separate visas. There are other complications, too — Taiwan, special economic zones (SEZs), ...
    • I think some travellers need some background on those, so we should have it. Not in vast detail; there are other sources for that, but an overview. On the other hand, even an overview is too much to put in the main China article, where a province list has already been deleted a few times, see Talk:China#Province_list. Nor do we want to repeat the SEZ info in all six articles on SEZs (4 cities, one district and one province). This article seems like the right place for it.
    • I'm not sure to what extent my arguments apply to other countries' lists. (WT-en) Pashley 05:41, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
  • There is absolutely no clear consensus on this one. I'm still in favor of redirects, although per Pashley it sounds like the China article can stay as-is. Any other thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. There was no consensus to keep, and policy states that deletion is the outcome in such a scenario. I am re-nominating List of Chinese provinces and regions and List of US Interstates since it was not clear that these should be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:00, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2010&oldid=4924711"