Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2007

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in October 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/September 2007 or Project:Votes for deletion/November 2007 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Mountain Laurel ChaletsEdit

Should probably be merged into Gatlinsburg. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:18, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I assume you mean Gatlinburg, which already has a preposterously huge number of hotels listed. Just delete, as it's an obvious non-destination. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:21, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 11:06, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete. I've added them to Gatlinburg under "cabins". (WT-en) Pashley 20:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete (WT-en) OldPine 12:48, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:01, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


Clear copyvio, as the copyright appears on the image. It's a pity, because all Istanbul needs to become a credible DotM candidate is a map, but not this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:21, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted(WT-en) Ravikiran 19:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


Copyvio - look at Commons -- (WT-en) DerFussi 07:14, 19 September 2007 (EDT) Outcome: Deleted(WT-en) Ravikiran 19:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Bolivia Travel GuideEdit

Outcome: Speedily deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Witches Falls WineryEdit

Not an article. Move to Tambourine Mountain? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:58, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Or South-east Queensland. Mt. Tam has a few and hiking trails but I'm not sure if you can sleep there. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:47, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:23, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Hull 2 manchesterEdit

Outcome: Speedy deleted. Obvious non-article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:07, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

New York (city)/Morningside HeightsEdit

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:26, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Bled slovenia.jpgEdit

According to the description, this was taken from the Slovenia tourism website, and I find it unlikely that pro photographers who go around taking pics from helicopters would license their images as CC by-sa 1.0. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:01, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Some burden of proof should be required in a case like this. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Unsure. The language on the original site states: "Photographs can be used free of charge for all publications, both domestic and foreign, which are used for the promotion of Slovenia as a tourist destination. We ask you to state the name of the photographer and the source with each photograph. Any usage of photographs for commercial purposes by any Slovenian publishing house is permitted only with the author's consent." I don't think this is compatible with CC-SA-1.0, because of that last little bit about Slovenian publishing houses, but could one of you legal beagles offer an opinion? It's a great pic, and it would be nice to use it if we can. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:14, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. The terms quoted above include restrictions that are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:31, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Images by User:VincentwansinkEdit

Image:SkylineDusk.jpg, Image:Railtown.gif, & Image:Edmonton Queen.jpg were uploaded without licensing info and they smell copyrighty to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:01, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:43, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Kuching international airport 01.jpgEdit

Requires model release --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:54, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Guide to petra jordan.jpg and Image:Guide to petra jordan.JPGEdit

Copyvio, [1]. Origional site does not specify license or copyright, but since it is commercial it is doubtful that they will allow anything beyond personal use on the image --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:46, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:54, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


Zaragoza city shield. Non travel related --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:54, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


Model release required --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:02, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:54, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Mauritius Port-Louis Meat Market.JPGEdit

Model release required --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:02, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete Mainly, due to the odor it brings to mind. Secondly, due to model release. shewy. (WT-en) 2old 13:34, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:54, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Picture 011.jpgEdit

No copyright information and not used on any articles.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Jonboy 11:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


Can't find any place to name this page-troll-created article for. Probably would have speedy-deleted it if I had my shiny buttons. Would I be wrong? (WT-en) OldPine 11:10, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

How about a redirect to Redmond instead? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:25, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
It occured to me, and I don't hate the idea. (WT-en) OldPine 17:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and to answer your question, this was "page creation vandalism" and I don't think a speedy delete would have been wrong. But a redirect seems marginally better in this particular case. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:47, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Already Redirected to Birmingham (Alabama) --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Images by User:(WT-en) SonofpatterEdit

Image:Souq.jpg and Image:Scan0013.jpg are both duplicates and privacy violations. Image:Sarajevo Turkish Center.jpg is also a privacy vio. All should be deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete (WT-en) 2old 13:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't really think Image:Sarajevo Turkish Center.jpg is a privacy violation. It's a public square and the people are not really identifiable, but due to the size I suspect that it is a copyvio. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)


Was part of another "advertisement" that has already been VFD'd and deleted. There being no other reason to keep the image around, it's a clear delete, but should we follow the process or just speedy-delete the thing? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:57, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. But then I'm feeling all newly powerful and stuff. (WT-en) OldPine 19:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:23, 22 October 2007 (EDT)


Very relevent for those who want to travel to Risa..! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) WikiTravelMaster (talkcontribs) 07:54, 7 October 2007

  • Delete. It's a nice image (except that the colours make it look like a computer game), but that's irrelevant because the source site says that it's copyrighted and all rights reserved. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:24, 22 October 2007 (EDT)


Appears not to be the name of any article-worthy location. ~ 09:49, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:33, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Johannesburg/South WestEdit

No longer required. Gauteng and Johannesburg is being restructured --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:50, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:36, 22 October 2007 (EDT)


I like cocktails and all, but they don't get their own articles around here.

  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 00:08, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Kerak. It's an old name for that city. (Does anyone else find it surprising that there are no town called Kir at the moment? It just looks and sounds like it should be a place name) --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 00:56, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep & redirect to Kerak ~ 07:33, 10 October 2007 (EDT)`
I've just converted it to a redirect, but the {{vfd}} tag is still there for now. ~ 05:57, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Kerak --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Bad Joke PagesEdit

Project:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Mars
Project:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Durkadurkastan
Project:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Keron
Project:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/MY HOUSE
Project:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Risa
  • Delete (also delete any redirects to these pages). None of the pages above are travel-related, and in general they were kept in order to distract people who were persistently modifying articles in negative ways. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for keeping any of these pages around any longer. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:54, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Keep. They're bad jokes by definition, they do no harm. (WT-en) Jpatokal
Keep Mars since it is actually decently written and moderately funny. Also, it is a real place and might be a travel destination at some point. Delete the others. (WT-en) Pashley 08:37, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete all but Mars - I know a lot of effort was put into Durkadurkastan but it's actually pretty offensive – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. We are not Wikipedia. We are allowed to have fun. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 01:13, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
It's possible to have fun without being offensive. The others are rather stupid and I don't care much either way if they stick around, but the durka one I really think should go. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:30, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Durkastan was one of my favorites. It made me spit out my drink the first time I read it. I say keep all. By the way, I hate the mass vfding of articles, please if you want to VFD something, give each article its own header. There are some exceptions, such as when someone adds a bunch of copyvios. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 11:32, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
There's no problem with having fun, and the Mars article is somewhat amusing, but the rest are far from amusing and serve only to pad the vanity of someone who was trolling. The point of the bad jokes and nonsense page was to keep stuff that wasn't relevant to Wikivoyage but was still clever enough to maybe bring a smile to someone's face; these articles are neither clever nor worth keeping. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep I agree these are not travel articles, but it is fun stuff and as long as it does not get too out of hand I think we should keep them. They are a lot of fun to look over and read. I am sure they will put a smile on someone in the future. Smiles are good. :) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Opps After further review, I agree with others that Durkadurkastan should go. The others are okay to stay. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Delete Project:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Durkadurkastan, Keep the rest --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:54, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Local airlines in Bolivia, Amaszonas, TAM, BoliviaEdit

None of these are articleworthy, they should be merged back into Bolivia. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:24, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

  • My reply: I made the research and wrote the text, and I still find the contents relevant to Wikivoyage and useful for the Wikivoyage users. I agree that the text can be merged into the article Bolivia. And my original plan was to place it there.

But the article Bolivia has some problems:

1. There are two relevant paragraphs/headings: 'National Travel' and 'Air Lines in Bolivia'. And obvious the 'National Travel' only deals with travel by air.

2. In this 'National Travel' the Jodanga Hostel in Santa Cruz is mentioned. I doubt this is OK, but I didn't want to be the one who face it.

3. In the paragraph 'Air Lines in Bolivia' there is something quite wrong with the codes and layout. In addition the text itself is mysterious and improper:

"I prefer this search engine .." and "Book your first night in Bolivia at the Jodanga hostel .."

If somebody will fix these mistakes/bugs in the article Bolivia, I will gladly merge my new text into it. ~ (WT-en) ErikSommer 19:48, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

The points you've raised have now been addressed. ~ 05:27, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:14, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:BBs1.jpg Image:BBs2.jpg Image:BBs3.jpgEdit

Deleted from Jakarta/Central with the edit summary "remove pictures with people - see our image policy. remove link to review." [2] ~ 06:12, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:40, 24 October 2007 (EDT)


I'm not sure where this content belongs, actually. Should it somehow be merged into Ottawa? Or made a district? No options seem very good, but my hunch is that it shouldn't have its own article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:21, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Unsure. You pretty much sum up my feelings on this one.
  • Keep, at least until Ottawa gets districtified, if ever. It is a moderately large (tens of thousands) town some miles outside the city itself. (WT-en) Pashley 16:46, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Ottawa for the time being. Wikipedia's text on Kanata is interesting: "Kanata is a large suburban area in the western part of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada." There is enough ambiguity as to the status of a place like this (and it's hardly unique among Canadian sort-of-towns) that keeping the pointer around, as a navigational aid, seems appropriate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:05, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
  • It is more complex than that. The National Capital Commission created a Green Belt around Ottawa, a strip several miles wide of farms and parkland with almost no development allowed. Kanata was the first large community developed outside that Green Belt, very much a separate town at first (1970s?). The original project got some design awards. Since then, it has grown a lot and there was a merging of several municipalities so Kanata is now politically and administratively part of Ottawa, but it is still some miles from other areas and fairly distinct. This is definitely not a delete. I'd prefer it stay separate, but merge and redirect is OK too. (WT-en) Pashley 09:35, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Convinces me. I'm changing my opinion to keep, although of course some content is needed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:53, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:59, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Back to Upington.JPGEdit

Cool photo, but without model release it can't stay --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:19, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:33, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Imgp0509 o.JPGEdit

No license. (WT-en) 2old 12:23, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

  • ?? - it's a red link, are you sure you typed that correctly? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:45, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I added namespace (:Image:) to the link and found Not to be used without permission. on the image page. -- (WT-en) Tatata 04:27, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete ~ 09:43, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:36, 29 October 2007 (EDT)


  • Delete. Attempted to replace the flag on the Vietnam page with this gif... it's not the right flag, and unecessary to replace the existing one anyway – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:45, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's an actual flag alright, but that of South Vietnam (1955–1975), and hence the kind of thing that'll get WT banned in .vn pretty quick! (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:23, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. It is a form of vandalism, so perhaps speedy. Not sure of policy there; probably does not matter if link has already been corrected. (WT-en) Pashley 03:35, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Would support Speedy. --(WT-en) OldPine 13:16, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:38, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:IMG 1620.jpgEdit

Logo on image, no license, probably a copyvio --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:21, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)