Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2008

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

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

Medical tourism edit

  • Delete. Medical tourism is a reason for travel, not a way of travel. It would be silly to have an "Ink toner travel" article that made suggestions about where on the planet you should go to make deals to get supplies of ink toner. We shouldn't recommend places for non-emergency medical treatment. Secondly, I think the entire issue of non-urgent medical treatment exceeds the scope of our goals. Medical decisions can easily cost lives and we should not involve ourselves in this topic. Given the serious amounts of money involved in this sub-industry, policing ourselves against touts (or even detecting which ones are touts) is just way more effort than it's worth. Let's declare this subject Not Our Problem. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree with Colin's statements above. I think this belongs in the same category as sex tourism and we should not carry detailed information about the topic. There are many other places on the web where people can find this kind of information if they really want. No need to have it here. --(WT-en) Nick 03:38, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep This article is well balanced presenting both the possible benefits and drawbacks of medical tourism. It certainly doesn't "tout" anything. What I think it could benefit from are some contributions from people who actually have travelled abroad for medical care -- someone who actually has underwent a procedure such as LASIK surgery, for example, could probably add some useful comments about how they made a decision to seek treatment overseas. Among the expat community getting medical care outside of one's home country is quite common. Also I don't think this has anything to do with sex tourism so why make the comparison.(WT-en) SONORAMA 11:11, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Just to clarify -- I'm not saying the existing article touts. What I am saying is that if someone adds a clinic in Tijuana that sounds reasonable but is a tout, it will be too hard to detect the problem. It's not like a Bar where one can visit it and immediately say this sucks and then delete it from Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • A Proposal Colin's doubts on the topic seem to be that anything medical-related is beyond the scope of Wikivoyage and the potential harm that could come if someone took bad advice from an article. In other words, the issue is not with the article itself, but rather with what potentially links to it. I say "potentially" because as of right now the article has no links whatsoever.
So my proposal is this. Similar to Wikivoyage's policy against links to hotel aggregator booking sites, let's make a policy against recommending specific doctors or clinics in medical tourism articles. Instead, appropriate links to provide might be: Links to the local-country medical association or credentialing body, links to hotels and inns that specialize in recuperative stays for medical tourism patients (such places do exist) and also links to US based international medical accreditors such as the Joint Commission International[1] Medical tourism is a huge and growing trend, and since many travelers come to Wikivoyage first for information, it is important that we include information about this aspect of travel here. (WT-en) SONORAMA 20:32, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd be okay with the general discussion and medical association stuff. It wouldn't really work to link to hotels and inns since they tend to be associated with specific physicians that we really can't vouch for. So in other words, I'd be okay with a policy where we never link to a medical service provider of any sort. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:49, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I agree with User:(WT-en) Borndistinction as of course wikivoyage aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.
  • Keep. Well! Of course nowadays Medical tourism is so popular that most of the travel related websites do contain information about Medical tourism so why not wikivoyage too? Although the article needs to be plunge forward, this could be a very usable one. (WT-en) Barracuda 12:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. I agree with Colin: medical tourism is a big topic and definitely in scope, but we should keep it high-level, in the same way as we already do in the scuba diving articles: talk about the diving itself, not the operators (and certainly not the individual divemasters). However, large hospitals should still continue to be listed in city articles, the way we list them today. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Medical Tourism is huge these days and if Wikivoyage aspires to be the definitive online travel guide it is something we should be trying to cover. (WT-en) Jpatokal's point about keeping it high level is something I would agree with. (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, seems to be a valid travel topic. Agree with keeping it high-level as mentioned above. (WT-en) JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Quick question—don't we have a disclaimer somewhere absolving Wikivoyage & contributors from lawsuits deriving from harm arising from following Wikivoyage advice? I can't seem to find that anywhere. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I just happened across it in Wikivoyage:Copyleft#Things for users to know, and remembered reading this query back here. Perhaps there should be a link titled Disclaimer on the Main Page that links to it? (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:53, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Sorry to have wandered off topic on the vfd page, but that seems like a good idea to me. I'll copy this discussion to Talk:Main Page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep but rework before writing more articles on this subject. I'm very hesitant with this article. Per our policies/practices on travel topics, I don't understand what the rationale would be for deleting it—it is a valid way of travel, like tourism, business, studying, and other forms of travel that Wikivoyage aims to serve. To respond to the above deletion arguments: 1) Colin's point about "reason" for travel and "way" of travel is well taken, and the existing article might not be the best format to go forward with this, but I'm also hesitant to rule out the subject altogether, since we aim to serve all travelers; 2) the gravity of medical decisions is a good reason to tread lightly on the subject, but I'm not convinced it's a sufficient reason to avoid the subject; 3) As I understand it, we somewhat riskily ruled out sex tourism for subjective reasons—we don't like it (I agree)—but I don't see a pressing moral reason to avoid talking about medical tourism.

    But like others have said, I'm very unsure that we could successfully provide reliable advice about which medical services to use, and this is a way more serious matter than which restaurants or hotels a traveler should patronize. I agree that, at least for the time being, we should keep this strictly to a "meta" discussion of the subject. I'm not convinced that we are yet doing a great job of even that, so lets try and nail that down before wading further into treacherous terrain. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
OK, if we're keeping, can someone do the rework soon? I suspect as soon as that vfd tag is removed it will sit as-is for ages – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:35, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:04, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Diving in Thailand edit

Redundant vs. Scuba diving, Scuba diving in Asia and specific listings for Thailand.

By the way, what about Scuba diving in Australia then? isn't that redundant too but it is still acceptable? What's the difference between Scuba diving in Australia and Diving in Thailand? May i know please in case i can adjust my content to match wikivoyage.--(WT-en) Borndistinction 03:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep Yes, how can you have an article on Diving/Australia but not Diving/Thailand?! Double standards? .--(WT-en) Thai-blogs
  • Keep It's one of the better travel topic articles we have.
  • Keep I'd sooner see Diving in Southeast Asia and scrap both the Asia and Thailand articles; that strikes me as the right scope. However, I'm not a diver and not volunteering to do the work, so that opinion can be ignored. (WT-en) Pashley 18:45, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. The basics on "diving in Thailand" should be covered in Thailand#Do, and then individual destinations should be covered in those respective articles... we don't need to strip this out of the main Thailand article – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • How about using the article as a pointer? ie, keep the general info on this page, but the specific info on local articles. In this case, places such as Krabi can be listed as links rather than headings... just throwing out an idea... (WT-en) WindHorse 23:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep or merge with Scuba diving in Asia, it seems reasonable that one might take a trip to Thailand just to scuba dive and so it's a reasonable field of pursuit. (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:48, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep as list of pointers per Windhorse's suggestion. Diving in Asia seems like a much more suspect & redundant article to me, especially since the Asia article is spare & could use the writing in its "do" section. (These travel topic discussions are fun; each contributor always comes out on the same side of things, since we clearly don't agree on how to work travel topics!) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:09, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Seems that we're leaning towards keep on this one, if that's going to happen, someone should jump in and actually turn it into that golden list of pointers and remove all the redundant info that should be in scuba diving instead – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:09, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Update: Scuba diving in Asia has been merged and redirected, and Diving in Thailand cleaned up a lot, but not completely. I am trying to sort out the hierarchy of Diving guides, and it seems most useful at this stage to expand the number of destinations in Scuba diving#Destinations to contain all country level destinations, and where there is no lower level article, to hold the information until there is enough to justify a country level diving guide, such as Diving in Thailand, Scuba diving in Australia, and Diving in South Africa, which is further split into regions as some of the regions have a large number of sites. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 08:41, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Karachi/Art galleries edit

Outcome: Deleted; contents merged into Karachi. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Dubai Desert Safari edit

This is an article about an activity, not a geographical destination. (See article content from before I blanked it.) Not appropriate per Project:What is an article?. Article was posted by a new contributor, User:(WT-en) Northtours, who may be connected with the operators of that activity. I've offered guidance, see User talk:(WT-en) Northtours#North Tours LLC listings. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:13, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:20, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Image:IbajayLocal.jpg, Image:TripToIbajayAnim1.jpg, & Image:TripToIbajayJeep1.jpg edit

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Image:Struve geodetic arc.jpg edit

This image has three(!) different copyright notices on it and no indications that permission was obtained from any of the copyright holders, so most likely a copyvio. (WT-en) JYolkowski 21:57, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Whitefield (Scotland) edit

From the article's talk page: "Whitefield is NOT a city in Scotland. It is the name of a farm. This item should be deleted." I have no opinion on the truth of the statement, but if it's true, then Whitefield isn't a destination and the article should indeed be deleted. Could someone research? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Wikipedia has Whitefield as a location in Scotland's county of Perth, among other places. The location does not have an article. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I've certainly never heard of a village called Whitefield in Perthshire. The only item of note I have found with a few minutes digging on Google and Cuil is a pictish Megalith [2] at Balhomie House, Cargill, which was moved there from a Whitefield Farm, or West Whitefield Farm. Looking at the item history page, the anonymous user who first set it up made a reference to Loch Ness (which is not in Perthshire!). There is a tiny village called Whitefield on the east bank of Loch Ness, which does have at least one Guest House (I know because I once did some business for the owners of it). However it is a tiny village (I'm sure there is no shop, cafe or pub) and given that we already have a Loch Ness article I would suggest that any listings there (not that anybody has added any listings in Whitefield) could be fitted into that article. Streetmap [3] lists other Whitefields in Fife, The Borders and Moray, but again they appear to be just farms. So Delete. (WT-en) Tarr3n 06:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Looking at the map again I've remembered that the guest house I visited near Loch Ness was actually in Whitebridge, NOT Whitefield. They're only a couple of miles apart. From the map, it looks like the Loch Ness Whitefield is literally one or two buildings - so this is not a valid article. Speedy delete?

Outcome: Deleted, along with its talk page. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Los Angeles/Palms edit

  • Delete or Redirect to Los Angeles/West. This is a subdistrict -- it's part of the Westside district of Los Angeles. I realize LA is a big city, but as far as I know, subdistricts are unprecedented. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Getting LA straight has been on my list for a loooong time... soon soon... about to start some maps of it soon too! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:40, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Already Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 11:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Châteaux du Pin edit

  • This entire beautiful region around the central Loire is a bit overlooked by wikivoyage; perhaps leave this article until the area gets better coverage? --69.124.126.56 22:15, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Does not qualify as an article on it's own. Merge with nearest town before deletion? --(WT-en) Nick 04:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge with Maine-et-Loire. The nearby village has no article. The nearest destination for which we have an article is Angers but it's 30 minutes away. Maine-et-Loire is the region. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge to Maine-et-Loire, make this a 'redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 09:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
  • This is a pretty marginal redirect, but given that some people might conceivably be searching on this name, it might be useful, and does no harm. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:32, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged and Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 11:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Carronshore edit

It's a suburb of Falkirk, which is never likely to require hugecity status. There is no content at all in the article. On the discussion page, (WT-en) Wandering questioned it's validity as an article back in November 2007. Nobody has defended it.(WT-en) Tarr3n 11:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Suburbs aren't part of a city, though, by definition. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:26, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Maybe "suburb" means different things in different parts of the World. I guess in Wikivoyage speak I should have described it as a "District" of Falkirk, which would have avoided confusion. In any case, even if there are one or two B&Bs there they really should be listed under Falkirk - Carronshore is not a destination.(WT-en) Tarr3n 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Falkirk. As usual, look for the approach that helps the traveler, in the unlikely event that some have heard of this place but don't know its affinities to Falkirk. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:53, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected --(WT-en) Nick 11:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Local culture edit

  • Delete Subject covered in each article under Understand and Respect, although I understand the Respect section is being considered for elimination and merged into Understand. (WT-en) 2old 11:38, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete I don't believe this overview will ever be a good article as it is too general. Common sense tells one that folks have different ways and different expectations in different places. As noted by Mike this should be covered on a local basis. (WT-en) OldPine 12:03, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete I agree with the above. (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:43, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 11:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All images by Pork305 edit

People tried to contact on user talk page, but no response. uploaded a lot of images, and they're all over the place in format, and aren't likely to have been taken all by the uploader. A couple others were successfully vfd'd last year, but I think we should get rid of the whole lot – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 10:29, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete, agree with nomination. (WT-en) JYolkowski 23:12, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, a couple of google searches shows many come from a variety of travel webpages.--(WT-en) Inas 00:59, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 12:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Image:Johnny's trip to Phil 043.JPG edit

  • Delete Violates image policy by showing recognizable persons. (WT-en) OldPine 07:05, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 12:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Tel Aviv/HaYarqon Street edit

  • Delete It's not really a district, just a street with no major importance ([4] Contains no mentioning of it (and thi is a good list). The article seems to have been created just for publicity purpose of a hotel. (WT-en) Arik Galansky 15:36, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. This article was also previously discussed Project:Votes_for_deletion/June_2007#Tel_Aviv.2FHaYarqon_Street, but not deleted as there was reusable content. All content now seems to be part of Tel_Aviv --(WT-en) Nick 12:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

HotelsCombined edit

Outcome: Deleted.

"Numburchuili Cheese Trail" & "NUMBUR CHEESE TREK" edit

I'm very unsure what to make of these two, but they are at the very least currently not formatted properly. Anyone know what these are? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:23, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll add ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S TRAIL’ to the list. Inclined to delete, if for nothing but the gall of shouting titles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:38, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd say Merge. A search on "trek" shows an insane collection of articles for trekking in Nepal — Nepal Trekking, Trekking in Nepal, Trekking in everest, Trekking in Everest, Trekking in mustang, Trekking in annapurna, Zangskar Trek, Island Peak, Jonsom-Muktinath Trek, Mt. Everest Base Camp Trek, Mt. Everest, Jomsom-Muktinath Trek, Mera Peak Climbing and Helambu Langtang Trek! Several are stubs or redirects, and quite a few have "merge" tags suggesting putting the info into the region article.
Can we merge all the ones I've listed and the ones under discussion here into one article? I'd prefer to see them all merged into Trekking in Nepal rather than putting the info into region articles. A big part of a Nepal trip for many people is choosing which trek or treks to go on; I think the info needed to make those choices should all be in one article, and there's clearly too much of it to fit in Nepal. (WT-en) Pashley 09:17, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Delete?. I'm pretty familiar with the trekking scene in Nepal, and have never heard of this trek. A Google search also failed to throw up a single entry. However, that is not to say that a new trail is not being developed, but I'm inclined to delete until more info becomes available. One reason for the confusion over treks is that many routes overlap. For example the 'Island Peak' trail pretty much follows the 'Mt. Everest Base Camp Trek' route. It is only at the final leg of the treks where the trails diverge. (WT-en) WindHorse 11:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep. Firstly, apologies! These entries were my first attempts and I am getting used to the format/language etc. The"Numburchuili Cheese Trail","NUMBUR CHEESE TREK" and the‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S TRAIL’ are two UN-ILO sponsored projects currently underway to generate employment in the region beside the Everest Base Camp Trek, which is often overlooked. Websites for both treks shoould be online by the end of the month, www.iptrail.com and www.numburcheesecircuit.com. in the meantime I thought wikivoyage would be a popular forum to post info on the treks.There is a lot of demand for new treks as Everest/Annapurna/Langtang are so over crowded, and completely lack any cultural diversity. Please Don't delete!
There are an insane number of articles on trekking in nepal, it would be great to merge them all and/or organise the Nepal page better so it is not so clogged.
Also the link to Mount Kailash in the Nepal page can be disputed, it is afterall in Tibet. (WT-en) Ramechhap 13:13, 15 September 2008
Delete.Please delete the glaring "NUMBUR CHEESE TREK", "Numburchuili Cheese Trail" and ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S TRAIL’. I have replaced them with the 'Numbur Cheese Circuit' and the ‘Indigenous Peoples Trail'… Rookie Error!
OK, I cleaned up some, fixed the rookie errors, so now we have only articles with sensible names: Numbur Cheese Circuit and Indigenous Peoples Trail. Do we want to keep those? If so, they need de-touting, see Project:Don't tout. (WT-en) Pashley 02:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep - based on Ramechhap's explanation and Pashley's clean up...(WT-en) WindHorse 04:18, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Both people who originally said "delete" above, Peter & Windhorse, now agree to keep. So do I, though I think some de-touting is in order and in the longer term, maybe quite a bit of merging. Anyone else want to speak up? Or can we close the vfd? (WT-en) Pashley 16:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome -- kept under new names. (WT-en) Pashley 09:20, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Natchez Trace & 600 Antebellum mansions in Natchez, MS edit

  • Unsure & Delete. The Natchez Trace looks like a pretty straightforward itinerary topic, but is someone planning to write it? And, if not, are we willing to keep the article as is? I think 600 Antebellum mansions in Natchez, MS is a pretty clear "merge & delete" case, (merge to Natchez) but I figured I'd list it here alongside the first vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:55, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
  • I've deleted the mansions article, but Natchez Trace certainly could be a viable itinerary. I'd say keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Natchez Trace kept as an Itinerary, 600 Antebellum mansions deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Spaceships_Campervans edit

  • Delete. Another ad, from the same source as above. --(WT-en) Inas 20:16, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'd say speedy, but haven't done it since it is listed here. Other opinions? (WT-en) Pashley 22:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Our deletion policy allows for speedy on businesses – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Spaceships edit

  • Delete. Another ad, from the same source as above --(WT-en) Inas 20:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Potato edit

  • Delete. Not a valid travel article topic. (WT-en) Nrms 10:53, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Bush edit

  • Delete. Not a valid travel article topic. (WT-en) Nrms 10:54, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted

Image:Hunza flag.jpg edit

  • Delete. Flags below the country level are not relevant for a travel guide – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Flags are not relevant for a travel guide period. ---(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 15:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

SAARC edit

  • Delete; not relevant for the traveller. We do not have articles on ASEAN or NATO; this is outside our domain. 03:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Nick 15:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2008&oldid=2091542"