Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2011

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion
← August 2011 Votes for deletion archives for September 2011 (current) October 2011 →

Both a hamlet and a town. The hamlet has maybe 20 houses and a few farms, and no traveler amenities of any kind. The surrounding town is has a few thousand people, a couple of restaurants, and a bit of lodging -- but they are largely located in other named communities (like Aurora (New York), a village) for which we may one day have articles. The article was started by someone who only said: "its a very bad town (never go here) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (WT-en) LtPowers 22:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

  • Redirect to wherever is most appropriate.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:20, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
    • There's no good target, or I would have done so. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:42, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
In such cases, perhaps re-direct to the region? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:26, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. There's no information in this article and there doesn't seem to be an obvious redirect target. If someone wants to create a real article for this town in the future they could do so, but there doesn't seem to be much value in keeping this current article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:25, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:29, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Despite the continued existence of the American Airlines article, we haven't really opened the floodgates on making articles for airlines-- this template was created prematurely, as was pointed out on its talk page a couple of years ago.

  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:50, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Having this template around is misleading since airline articles aren't encouraged, but it would be good to archive the template content (perhaps at Project:Article templates#Template:Airline) in case this issue ever arises again. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:57, 23 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Unless we are really going to go through with deleting the AA article, I'd vote to Keep the template and approve the creation of more guides to airlines. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 22:37, 23 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. The template content was archived at Project:Article templates#Template:Airline. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:40, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

An outdoor museum/botanical park of less than 1 sq. km with no accommodations.

  • Create Brumadinho and Merge and redirect there. (WT-en) texugo 21:46, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Concur with Texugo, but is there not a less unfriendly tag to use on the page than nominated for deletion? • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:25, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: merged to Brumadinho. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

This was created as a redirect to Sri Lanka's Southern Province, but it's such a broad word that I don't think it needs to be here at all. It certainly does not indicate Sri Lanka, nor does it really point to anywhere specific. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:54, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, I don't really believe in the existence of articles like South either. It represents an extremely incomplete list, and a complete list would be extremely long and rather useless. Directions are directions, not articles. (WT-en) texugo 23:09, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
delete (WT-en) Pashley 23:15, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:25, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Also delete South. If that list was complete it would be huge. Pointless.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:26, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. I also found a South West. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:38, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
  • And East and I guess more. They should all go I think.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:46, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
    • Most certainly not. We agreed some time ago that these disambiguation pages should be limited to only those articles that are titled with the direction in question. The lists are complete and any additions beyond the parameters we agreed on should be removed. But deleting the pages entirely is a ridiculous overreaction, and would render many of these pages difficult to find. The reader looking for the region of the United States known as "The South" by searching for "South" can and should end up t a disambiguation page that directs him to the proper article, just as we do for any other ambiguous title. There is absolutely zero reason why South and East should be treated differently from Springfield or Jackson. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:32, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
(WT-en) LtPowers, how do you mean "the lists are complete"? From a quick search, I'd say we already have at least 300 articles with titles that include the word "south", and that's estimating conservatively without including redirects. Practically every continent, country, region, and huge city has some article named "South (something)" or "South Something", plus lots of smaller cities which happen to include "south" in their names. Please link to the discussion you are referring to so we might understand what "parameters" you are talking about. (WT-en) texugo 12:06, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
(WT-en) LtPowers, where is that discussion please? I am struggling to see how something quite so parochial can be enshrined in policy, or that any user could not find "The South" of the USA by looking in a rather more logical way for it. Absent this page, why on earth would it be difficult to find "The South" of the USA?
Just about every country I have lived in has regions colloquially called "The East", "The South" etc etc. And the same is true within regions and within cities as well. To be complete the lists would be truly enormous. Do you seriously believe (for example) that a Northern disambiguation page which lists Northern Laos, Northern Norway, Northern Beaches, Inner Northern Thailand, Great Northern Highway etc etc (there seem to be 147 such instances, excluding redirects), could possibly be useful? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:11, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
LtPowers is right—see Project:Disambiguation_pages#Harder_cases for the policy article and Wikivoyage_talk:Disambiguation_pages#Link_to_every_possibility.3F for the discussion. Southern should still be deleted, as it is not an article, there are no articles by that name to disambiguate, and the redirect assumes implausibly that anyone searching for "Southern" would want the Sri Lankan article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:51, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
Gah, I see that Sri Lanka's regions use the antiquated "Directional adjective (Parent region)" formula that we agreed (somewhere) was inferior to the "Directional adjective parent region" style (e.g., "Southern (Sri Lanka)" versus "Southern Sri Lanka"). I'll fix this (today, once I have time). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:56, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the links Peter. Crikey. That really is a load of twaddle :). I guess the belief is that there really are people daft enough to go to travel site and type in "South" as a search term when they are looking for a specific destination :). It is certainly not worth debating all over again. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:05, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, I still think it's silly too. Here's another question, though. If the prevalent naming convention is "South Regionname" and not "South (Regionname)", and if we have a supposedly complete South disambig page for only four exceptions from that naming convention, I'd like to know on what ground we have made those exceptions. Why not South Brazil, South Minas Gerais, South United States, and South Thailand? Using those four titles would eliminate the need for this silly disambig page entirely. (WT-en) texugo 00:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
I have a faint recollection of that "South" debate before. Personally I hate the bracketed naming format as we end up with an article called South travel guide - very unhelpful. But I think the policy goes back to my point above - WT seems to believe there are people out there who would search for "South". I agree that South United States is cleaner than South (United States), means we do not end up with unhelpful article names, and really removes the issue altogether. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:37, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
Ha! I just read that discussion: Wikivoyage_talk:Naming_conventions#Use_of_.22North.22_considered_harmful. But we're veering off topic, and should move back to that discussion topic page for further, well, discussion on this topic. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Note that only Southern was deleted - if other articles should be deleted then they should have their own nominations and discussions in order to avoid confusion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:53, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Various Bangladesh articles

User (WT-en) Sctourscircle_bandarban has started a whole bunch of new articles for attractions in the Bandarban area. All are designed to promote a particular travel agency, and all seem to be copy vios from that travel agent's website. The obvious non-articles have already been speedied. Any objections if the rest are emptied and re-directed to Bandarban?

--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

That seems completely reasonable. Delete all. As this user is continuing to create articles, and all of them contain links to a travel agency, it's clear that this isn't a case of a confused new user but instead someone trying to abuse Wikivoyage for advertising purposes, so just delete these articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:01, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
    • I agree with Texugo here. The ones with "and" should be deleted. The others can be redirects.
    • Is there some merging to be done, anything in these pseudo-articles worth adding to Bandarban?
    • Is the travel agency becoming annoying enough to be a candidate for the spam blacklist? My guess would be not yet; they're just naive. (WT-en) Pashley 02:23, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Comment. Same user continues to create non-articles to promote a travel agency. All are being deleted on sight and the company url has been blacklisted.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted all. Note that Buddha Dhatu Jadi was previously redirected to Bandarban so I did not delete that redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:57, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, and at 133x96 it's too small to be worth keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:24, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, and at 150x87 it's too small to be worth keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:24, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned anime image, not travel related. Speedy delete unless anyone can come up with a reason not to. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

These are orphaned and of questionable origin.

  • Delete. Orphaned map with no license info provided, and at 118x95 it's too small to be worth keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, and there is a copyright notice on it with no indication it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, no indication of source. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, no indication of source. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable image with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable image with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of someone's feet. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable image with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned museum logo image. No indication that it can be used CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete/merge. Time has expired. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:25, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
  • "Speedy Move to my userspace". I have moved this to my own sandboxspace, since I do eventually plan to do something with it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:07, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted, but saved for potential resurrection at User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald/Underground Railroad. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. I don't know what this numbered list of African cities is supposed to be, but I do know that it's not an article.
  • Redirect to East Africa. It stands for East African Customs Union. I'm not sure if it is a topic really of interest to travel, at least until they establish a single tourist visa, but I don't really know much about it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:52, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Any more input? What shall we do with the odd numbered list of cities? Delete that and just redirect the page? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
I'd say so, but would feel more comfortable if we wait for another vote, or for the nominator to change the initial vote to redirect. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:27, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Outcome: redirected (WT-en) Pashley 21:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Orphaned Alberta regions

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Choquequirao campsites

Four campgrounds and one lodge, would make valid info as listings.

  • Merge with Choquequirao and Delete - Individual accommodations do not deserve to be redirects. (WT-en) texugo 12:44, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
  • It is always tempting to redirect just to avoid these debates, and the redirects would do no harm. But merging the content into Choquequirao and deleting all four campsites is the right move I think.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 13:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Agreed, merge and delete. (WT-en) Pashley 00:04, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Merged and deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:47, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

If we are actually going to treat all those villages (including Hempstead village) as separate destinations, there is not really any need for this additional hierarchical level. We're already below the level of counties here. How many levels do we need, and is this article ever going to amount to anything when all the details go in the individual village articles? The other option would be to say, no, we're not going to have all these village articles, and merge them in to this one. I don't really care what we do, but the whole of Long Island is starting to look a little over-subdivided to me...

  • Delete or Merge children - (WT-en) texugo 21:33, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete or redirect; I see nothing worth merging, though I suppose a few of the villages might also be worth redirects. (WT-en) Pashley 23:42, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep (village articles) - In New York, villages are more similar to the equivalent of towns in other states (see ). Towns are much larger and are regions of counties (The town of Hempstead has 755,924 people and is 191.3 square miles.) We should keep all village articles, and if you think Long Island is too subdivided, we could delete town articles but then the Nassau County page would have a really long list of villages. Another option could be to delete the county articles and keep the town articles (since there are only 2 counties and 13 towns in Long Island.) (WT-en) –sumone10154 10:21, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
Is there anything besides administration that unites the villages in the town? If we are putting all listings in the village pages, it seems there is nothing left to say on this page. (WT-en) texugo 01:32, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
I don't think so, but maybe you should ask somebody from New York just in case. However, when the town articles are deleted, Nassau County and Suffolk County will have a very long list of villages. (WT-en) –sumone10154 15:04, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
I live in New York, but Long Island is a special case. Most towns in New York have zero or one village, not dozens. Nassau and Suffolk Counties, however, are practically overflowing with incorporated villages. My gut feeling -- not being very familiar with Long Island -- is that those two counties will need greater subdivision than most counties in New York. That said, however, currently only a couple of the villages in Hempstead have articles; our convention is to only subdivide when necessary. So the question is, is there a better way to subdivide Nassau County than by towns? (There are three towns and two cities in Nassau County, though, so maybe it's just fine.) (WT-en) LtPowers 11:55, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. This looks like a region article but purports to be for a town, and the linked articles are almost all red. If an article for this town is needed in the future then it can be re-created, but for now the content doesn't appear to be worth merging and the ambiguity over whether this is really a subject for its own article makes a redirect a questionable solution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:35, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
    • As explained earlier, "town" in New York refers to an administrative division of a county, so using the region template is perfectly appropriate (note that this single town has more population and far more villages within it than most counties upstate). It's certainly not a singular destination and using a small city article on it would be pointless. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:24, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
      • I missed the exact distinction in the discussion above. Since you haven't voiced an opinion on this VFD but seem to have more knowledge of New York than others, do you have a preference on whether this is kept or deleted? This VFD is almost half a year old, so it would be nice to bring it to a resolution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:28, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
  • And from anyone who votes to keep this, I'd like to hear what kind of info you expect this article to contain, given that it's not a bottom-level article and thus won't be getting any of the listings. (WT-en) texugo 01:27, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
    • Well, the whole organization of Long Island needs to be revisited. Dividing it into Nassau and Suffolk, and each of those into cities and villages and hamlets will (eventually) mean we have just two divisions at one level, and then dozens or scores of divisions at the next level. If we keep articles like this one, we mitigate the second problem somewhat, at the expense of an extra level in the hierarchy. A better solution would be to find a more equitable top-level division for Long Island, and Hempstead (town) could reasonably be one of those regions. (Alternatively, we could scrap Long Island as a region and just make Nassau and Suffolk Counties into subregions of Metro New York, as with Westchester and Rockland Counties.) (WT-en) LtPowers 15:46, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
      • If I'm understanding, this might be a useful sub-region at some point, but currently there is no structure in place. If that's correct, and assuming that the article name would be questionable even if this regional structure were used (using "(town)" as a region disambiguator), then it sounds like a delete might make sense (for now) and the issue of a regional hierarchy can be revisited in the future. If that's wrong then any further insight would be appreciated, otherwise it sounds like resolving this VFD as a delete would be an acceptable solution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:42, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete As it stands, it is just a useless list of links to mostly non-existent articles, and it is not used in the Long Island regions list. At most, it might become a redirect. If it reappears later because "the whole organization of Long Island needs to be revisited", that is fine too. (WT-en) Pashley 21:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:50, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Same image at different resolutions, both orphaned and of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image advertising a film festival. No indication of licensing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided, and the image page is an advertisement for tour services. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned company logo, and the image page is an advertisement for tour services. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned collage image with no indication of source. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

These images are all orphaned and all appear to have been uploaded to promote a specific tour company, something that is discouraged by Wikivoyage:Image policy#Photos of businesses.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned scanned map image with no indication of source. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Orphaned article of a private campsite which contained copyrighted text.

  • Delete. Has had no actual content for 4 years, is just an empty page. (WT-en) Szevvy 20:03, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep. It is a real place and a valid article. An article being empty is not a reason to delete it.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:15, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Merge into Moucha Island. Nothing against the place, but since these are tiny islands with hardly any facilities or sights, located right next to each other and mostly visited in one go by divers, it might actually be better to create one (proper) article for them together. Ways of getting in or around are the same, as are the expectations for divers, as far as I can see. (WT-en) Justme 11:23, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Moucha Island per Justme. Redirect, rather than merge, because there is no content to merge! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:30, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Moucha Island. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Has had a Merge notice on it since 2009 as it doesn't meet the criteria for an article. The notice suggests to merge it with Blyde River Canyon. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

  • Merge and re-direct.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
  • If this isn't a nomination for deletion why is it on the VFD page? There is already a merge notice on the article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:59, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
It's a nomination for deletion. Reason: "doesn't meet the criteria for an article". For what it's worth, delete is my vote. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 09:43, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Blyde River Canyon - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:14, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Delete. Aside from the copyright concern, it is a terrible quality image. --(WT-en) burmesedays 03:43, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2011&oldid=4924778"