Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2006

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

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

  • I'm not entirely sure we even need this, now. This was created as a failed solution to the discussion about reducing the two week waiting period for carrying out deletions to ten days or week. No one uses the IFD page and it seems highly redundant if people are only going to list images on the VFD page. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:47, 16 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Agreed. Delete. -- (WT-en) Tim 23:50, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'd rather not have to look at two different pages. I think the problem this was trying to solve was to keep the amount of material manageable, and (for now) we seem to have solved that by being more liberal about speedy deleting obvious non-articles, and ending VFDs early for obvious keepers. The Template:Ifd should also be listed for deletion, since if the above page goes then the template should go as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:56, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Agree with Ryan, and we can always re-create it if it proves necessary. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:30, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, but I still think the underlying problem needs to be addressed. (By cutting the two week waiting period.) -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:59, 27 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Anyone want to make a comment. Two weeks are up and there seems to be a consensus to delete, but if anyone objects please state so. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:33, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Listed here since the IFD page is listed here. If one is kept, the other should be too, and if one is deleted, the other is then useless. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:56, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Agree, delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 02:26, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Three articles created by the same user in an attempt to be helpful on the town of Letterkenny, but shopping centers simply aren't destinations. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 19 August 2006 (EDT)

Philippines Images

edit
  • Delete. All of the above uploaded by the same user, who seems to have good intentions but also seems to be adding content that is not compatible with Project:Copyleft. I didn't track down all of the above images, but several are from pbase.com and a few others have borders, shading, etc. that looks consistent with what might be found on commercial websites. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:05, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:51, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Someone's rant about (I think) a company's air mile policy. Not an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:55, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
    • If there was ever a candidate for speedy deletion, this has to be it. Gone. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:16, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Philippines Images

edit
  • Delete. All of the above uploaded by the same user, who seems to have good intentions but also seems to be adding content that is not compatible with Project:Copyleft. I didn't track down all of the above images, but several are from pbase.com and a few others have borders, shading, etc. that looks consistent with what might be found on commercial websites. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:05, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:51, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
  • I've started hacking away on 'em (sadly, as some should be useful shots), but please pitch in. Best, of course, would be if licenses could be obtained, but it's been two weeks ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:14, 5 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete - a clumsy title of a very thinly disguised advertisment. Are we to have an artilce for every organised tour in every country? A slippery slope, surely. I would be more inclined to keep it if the tour was easily done independently by public transport. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:21, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
  • I don't see anything about this article that blatantly violates the Project:Deletion policy, and the author is trying to comply with policies. I really think this discussion should first be moved to the article's talk page before the article is listed for deletion - unless something clearly violates policy it should really be a final step for it to be listed here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 08:50, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Ryan and I both explained our concerns regarding policy and not being a tout to the user and he seems to be doing his best to be a productive user and with a little bit of work both articles can be excellent itineraries and less like a billboard. Keep -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 10:14, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep and edit. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:24, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I think a rename is in order, but this should make a good itinerary over time. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 23:24, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Rename and edit it. (WT-en) Tim 10:36, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. More of an advertisment than an article. More inclined to keep than the article above, but well worth discussing. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:21, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
  • I don't see anything about this article that blatantly violates the Project:Deletion policy, and the author is trying to comply with policies. I really think this discussion should first be moved to the article's talk page before the article is listed for deletion - unless something clearly violates policy it should really be a final step for it to be listed here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 08:50, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, but needs DRASTIC editing. The given itinerary just "happens" to match a product being advertised by the poster, what a coincidence (notice the "with our compliments" language). However, the concept of an itinerary for getting around the North Island is as sound as any other itinerary. Make it into something based on the island itself, not an infomercial, and the traveler's interests will be served. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:55, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Ryan and I both explained our concerns regarding policy and not being a tout to the user and he seems to be doing his best to be a productive user and with a little bit of work both articles can be excellent itineraries and less like a billboard. Keep -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 10:14, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. And edit. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:23, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 23:24, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, edit and make it much less specific to the tout's tours. This is potentially a very good itinerary (WT-en) Tim 07:11, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. The licence is OK but it's unused and I think "esbi" is the reason why - it spoils everything (look at the image). (WT-en) CandleWithHare 13:55, 23 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Agree that that's a blemish, but it can probably be cropped out. I worry, though, that the license may be bogus -- logos like the "esbi" are usually put in place partially to prevent re-use of an image, which implies licensing concerns. Anyway, if it's not being used, delete it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:37, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete or redirect to ?. This article has two sentences, so it should (preferably) be redirected to a better topic or else deleted. I'm not sure what an appropriate redirect would be, however. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:39, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Could we make this into a useful topic? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:38, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
      • The guideline is that "only when that information becomes large and complex should a new article be considered". This is neither, so I don't think it warrants its own article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:06, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
      • Keep. In my opinion this topic definitely qualifies under Project:Other ways of seeing travel. The fact that the current text is content-free doesn't mean that something can't, or shouldn't, be made of the topic. Content could involve things like how to get last-minute plane tickets without paying an arm and a leg; shortest possible routes to getting visas; pitfalls and shady operators; and so on. I don't have the expertise myself to write that content, but if I did, I'd be doing so, to try to keep this around. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:37, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
        • I've been on a crusade over the past few weeks to create several general travel topic articles so that we can keep the content of short articles like "Discount freighter travel for gay students who like to camp" without having to have such specific topics. Would it be sufficient to create a "Travel planning" topic and include last minute travel as a sub-section? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:43, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
  • I searched for a reasonable redirect option, but I found nothing that made more sense over another option. I thought keeping the article might have made sense, especially since I'm the type of person who knows I want to go to Germany, but I don't buy a plane ticket until two weeks prior to when I decide to go or book hotels until the day before I leave, however, the information/advice that Wikivoyage could offer doesn't seem to make much sense for keeping. Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 15:22, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Good content, but I am not convinced that we should have an article on just one street. Should move the content into Minneapolis/Downtown, perhaps creating an infobox or special sub-section within "Eat". -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:10, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
  • I think it would be better to discuss this at Talk:Minneapolis/Eat Street so that those who know Minneapolis can contribute to the discussion. I agree that this probably isn't a good district, but if we decide to move the content this article should become a redirect, not be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:50, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
    • Agree with Ryan. If this is a commonly used name for the district, it should at least be serviced via a redirect rather than simply having the page deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:40, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Other articles do exist on single streets:
    Toronto/Yonge Street - most of it would perhaps fit in an article on Downtown Toronto as a whole?
    Sydney/Castlereagh Street
    London/Bond Street - almost no content
    London/Regent Street - almost no content
    London/Oxford Street - a little content; I suppose Oxford St is noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article. That, and I can't think of what district article it would fit into.
    San Francisco/Castro Street - also noteworthy enough, but perhaps the article should be moved to "Castro District" or "The Castro"?
I would argue that the Eat Street article should stay. If not, I would maybe suggest an an article covering Uptown and the areas around it (e.g. Uptown proper, Lyn-lake, Eat Street, etc). There is an article on South Minneapolis, but I feel that South Minneapolis is too vast to be considered a district; the land area of "South Minneapolis" takes up over half of the city as a whole! Certain areas on the south side may warrant seperate articles. -- (WT-en) Eco84
  • Delete. This article will never grow. There's just a castle hotel there, which should be described in the article for Bolesławiec when it emerges but for now I moved it back to Wrocław, but to the Get out section this time. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 11:42, 20 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Or maybe a redirect? (WT-en) Maj 16:57, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Clearly passes the you-can-sleep-there test. Not every article has to be developed into a ten-page masterpiece; travelers passing through rural country have needs too. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
    • According to Project:What is an article, neither castles nor hotels should get their own articles. For example, there is no article for Corfe Castle -- it is described in Dorset. (WT-en) CandleWithHare 09:54, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
      • Whoa. I've found about half a dozen articles that allude to a village of Kliczków that includes -- but is not composed entirely of -- the castle. Villages most certainly qualify as destinations, even if castles do not. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:08, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
  • I did a very quick search and didn't find any references that weren't the castle. The hotel is linked in Wroclaw#Go next, so I vote delete unless someone can turn this into a valid town article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:57, 13 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Not an article. If we had a page called Kras, I'd suggest a redirect, as the region of Slovenia bearing that name is also known as Karst in German; but we don't, and this isn't the German-language wiki. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:16, 29 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Karst limestone formations are a major part of Chinese geography and a major attraction in tourist areas like Yangshuo and Wu Yi Mountain. Karst is the term used in English tourist literature. It is possible we need some general info on them. Can this article be improved to provide that? Or should we leave that to Wikipedia? (WT-en) Pashley 20:18, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
    • When I first learned that Chinese paintings of Karst were not stylized representations of mountains, I was stunned. Do you think this text could work integrated into the China article? I'd hate to lose the info, but an article on it's own seems a bit much. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:25, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
    • I've added a section "see" and subsection"Karst" to the China article. (WT-en) Pashley 02:43, 10 September 2006 (EDT)

No source. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Copyvio from Sumateratourism.com, and uploaded twice to boot. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete unless clarified. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:22, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

No source. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

No source. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:12, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

  • Delete. Template added by an anonymous user for linking to Wikipedia, but we use [[WikiPedia]] for that. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:04, 1 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Tim 10:35, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Copyvio from Wikipeda, and encylopedic topic that needs no travel article. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:20, 6 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 20:12, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete; clearly not an article, and never can be. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:41, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Provenance unclear, and uploader has not responded to request-for-clarification made in May. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Provenance unclear, and uploader has not responded to request-for-clarification made in May. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Provenance unclear, and uploader has not responded to request-for-clarification made in May. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:33, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:33, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:37, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:37, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:37, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since June. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused, and has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by a user who uploaded several potential copyvios. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused, no license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused, no license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:00, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Copyvio, uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. No license info, and uploaded by the same user who uploaded the above copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:16, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since July. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Copyvio, uploaded by the same user as the above images. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uploaded by the same user as the above images, so likely copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:24, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Has been marked as a copyvio since May. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:29, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
    • I followed the link in the copyvio box, and it leads to an entirely different image. Has something been changed here? The existing image has appropriate release language (if it's correct) and doesn't look like a copyvio at all, unless there's something else out there other than what's in the box. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:21, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
      • An image search on Google finds the image and gives that URL, although apparently the URL has since changed. Either way, given that a Google web search finds it and there is no confirmation from the uploader that it is legitimately CC-SA I think we need to assume copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:02, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This one doesn't quite fit the criteria of Project:What is an article?. An argument could be made for an article about places to see the northern lights, but that's pretty much anywhere above a certain latitude. Comments from others are appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:03, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
    • Before keeping this one, just to be clear, Volcanoes is about safety when visiting volcanoes and includes a list of volcanoes around the world. Waterfalls includes a list of notable waterfalls. If we're going to keep an article about the Northern Lights it needs to be a travel article, and not just an encyclopedia article about the phenomena. I'm happy to keep this article, but I think we need to be clear about how this could become a travel article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:50, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
    • It looks like there may be a consensus to keep, and this article is being turned into a travel article so I'll rescind my earlier vote. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:58, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
      • I have some specific ideas for that; will work on an outline this evening. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:05, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep. In fact it is not the case that "anywhere above a certain latitude" is good for the northern lights (due to the offset of the magnetic North Pole from the geographical one, if you want to get technical), and this counterintuitive statement is exactly the kind of thing that one can build a topical article around. It's every bit as valid as Volcanoes, Waterfalls, Hot springs, which have been developed into Travel topics that we're proud to have here; no reason why this one can't be too. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:49, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. We have a "Soccer in Europe" travel topic, why not "Aurora Borealis in the Northern Hemisphere" (so to speak)? Likewise Volcanoes, Waterfalls, etc. In any case, appropriate topic/content, and the intention of the "exceptions" guidelines appears to be to permit articles on distant, large, complex events (again, so to speak) which cannot be incorporated into any single you-can-sleep-here guide. ~ 203.144.143.7 15:23, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. (WT-en) Pashley 20:10, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
  • To be honest i saw articles about Formula One and various articles about Scuba diving, and decided to try to make a rough outline for an article about the Northern Lights, feel free to delete it if it doesn't fit in. I was well aware that the article would be something less than a travel guide when first created and agree it needs more input into places that organise "northern lights tours" etc. However: if someone is interested in traveling to see the northern lights it seems impractical to mention it in individual country articles. Like i said, feel free to delete if it doesn't fit in. If you decide to keep it it would be nice to have at least one picture of the lights and a map showing the northern lights oval (as mentioned above) in relation to the northern hemisphere.
  • Delete or redirect to Travelling with families. See Project:What is an article?. This is a query from a user about concerns while traveling, but contains no information that is useful to travelers. Those who travel with kids may be able to comment about whether this is a topic that is worth redirecting. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:43, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's probably something that should be noted in Stay Healthy in most countries so that traveller's understand the local customs since some countries tolerate public breastfeeding poorly. I don't think a general article is waranted. -- (WT-en) Colin 12:21, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 10:53, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect ~ 203.144.143.6 05:54, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect, with the obvious section added to Travelling with families -- there's little content there now to justify the redirect, but there certainly could be more. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:49, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect, per above. (WT-en) Computerjoe 14:35, 26 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect has already been done: (WT-en) Hypatia 18:29, 26 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Created as an experiment that didn't catch on. Template:Otheruses is still the preferred method for handling this functionality. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:54, 13 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 16:55, 13 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete since we don't write guides to attractions. See Project:What is an article?. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:42, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
  • I've moved the content to Ishpeming and the old article is now a redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:58, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
    • Should we even bother vfding a redirect? -- (WT-en) Sapphire 15:07, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
      • In the past redirects for museums and other attractions have sometimes been deleted, and sometimes not. My opinion is that it doesn't really hurt to keep them around, and in this case it might help the original contributor in case they come back looking for their article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:05, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect ~ 203.144.143.6 05:55, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2006&oldid=4924700"