Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2007

Add links
From Wikivoyage

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

This doesn't appear to be a destination, or a travel topic. -- (WT-en) Mark 11:18, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - Bamanankan is a language and should probably be redirected to Bambara, but I'm not sure what fraces means here. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Photo can be found on several commercial travel sites. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 22:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Thanks for doing this research. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. A French architect, not an article subject per Project:What is an article?. Content might be relevant as a note in the France article, but otherwise this is an encyclopedia article that is relevant to Wikipedia, but not Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. The image is orphaned, is not a travel photo, has no license, contains recognizable people with no model releases cited, and has a disturbingly long and cryptic file name. Most importantly, the guy in the foreground on the right is blinking, which totally ruins the aesthetics. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:21, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • DeleteHold - Do we really need articles for each airline in operation? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 02:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep The same user has done articles for two other airlines, see Travel_topics#By_plane, and I considered entering a VFD for those, since airline articles seem odd to me. But I decided not to bother; they do no harm I can see. For Silverjet, I didn't consider a VFD. They seem to offer an unusual service — business class only flights at good prices — which is worth mentioning. Even if the decision is to delete this, I think we need more info on such airlines, perhaps at First_and_business_class_travel#Business-only_airlines. (WT-en) Pashley 03:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Actually, I did the AA and NW articles (mainly because the Flyertalk people don't know how to edit their own wiki) and had nothing to do with the Silverjet article. - (WT-en) Sekicho 03:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Oops. Since the three all appeared in the Travel Topics index at about the same time, I made a bogus assumption. (WT-en) Pashley 05:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - while it's not officially listed in the criteria for deletion, I don't think it's far off from other things that are, and don't think it really needs to be it's own article. They only fly between Newark and London for one, so can be covered easily within the "Get in" sections on the articles, and mentioned (as it already is now) on the 1st&business travel page mentioned above. The info that's on the page could easily be condensed into a paragraph, a lot of it is more Wikipedia oriented anyhow – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Hold until the discussion I just started on Project:What is an article? reaches some sort of consensus. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I think some of the other articles-about-carriers demonstrate that there is some worth in attempting this experimentally. So let's just let the experiment run. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - though am wondering whether a standard template should be devised for these kind of articles in order to keep them focused on travelers needs and prevent the info from becoming too encyclopedic. For discussion, see: Project:What is an article?#Airlines . (WT-en) WindHorse 02:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept for now, but could be revisited when Project:What is an article? discussion ripens. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted; discussion also saved on Talk:Golf. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Sister article to the above (North weald airfield). ~ 61.91.191.10 17:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Redundant page resulting from an article being created with an incorrect name and then moved to another incorrect name (or something like that). ~ 61.91.191.2 13:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:24, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Ocean City (New Jersey). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article?#What DOES NOT get its own article? ~ 61.91.191.4 05:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article?#What DOES NOT get its own article? - and there's more than one Club Taco, so it's not appropriate to redirect. ~ 61.91.191.2 12:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Contains only an empty 6-section template, has no itinerary-related content ~ 61.91.191.10 14:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. I think this has the potential to be an awesome itinerary. I'll try to work on something, though, I will be working a lot this weekend and de: is about to hit a fairly important milestone. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Leaving an empty page means that someone will rise to the challenge. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Looks like an excellent itinerary in the making. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Redirects to Washington (D.C.) in four days ~ 61.91.191.10 14:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to the previous candidate, which was kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Now an empty page. ~ 61.91.191.10 17:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Appears to be an old and now redundant region article ~ 61.91.191.8 07:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Redirect to Piney Woods? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Reasonable idea, as I can imagine Googling on East Texas and getting to this page. Are they really equivalent, though? I don't know much about east Texas. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
They're not exactly equivalent (this area this article covers includes our Gulf Coast region as well) but it's a logical place to send someone looking for "east Texas". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Piney Woods. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Body of water, does not warrant article as described in Project:Bodies of water -- (WT-en) Tim 18:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I propose getting rid of the arondissements template at the bottom of all the Paris pages... is it really needed? We don't do that for any other city districts, I think them being listed in the districts section on the Paris page is sufficient... any objections? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • The reason (I think!) we have this template is because we can - in Paris the arondissements are well defined and recognised districts and as such we dont have to keep adding new district pages to the city, whereas London, for example, has got a really hazy list of districts that we're constantly revising and updating, which would make having a little district template there a complete pain. Having said that, I think the bar is of little use to the average traveller (for example, which one's got the Eiffel Tower in?) so I'd say delete it and improve the get out section in each of the arrondissement articles, to say which arrondissements are nearby and what the main attractions are in them, plus maybe also say which arrondissements the really famous attractions are in. -- (WT-en) Tim 07:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Good plan. We've been pretty good about keeping the articles uncluttered and I think this just opens the door to more things like it. Between the "Districts" section on the main city page and the "Get out" section on the districts, I think we've got it covered without the extra box – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Not an article, not sure what (if anything) would be a good redirect. (WT-en) Maj 22:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article?#What DOES NOT get its own article? ~ 61.91.191.8 13:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Redundant stub; about 20 countries have them, so not redirectable. ~ 61.91.191.11 05:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Will be a redundant redirect if/when Departement is deleted. ~ 61.91.191.11 05:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


See User talk:(WT-en) Blacksapphire#Eglistathr and http://www.getty.edu/vow/TGNServlet?english=N&find=Eglistathr&place=&page=1&nation= ~ 61.91.191.10 16:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

URL/watermark on the image suggests it's probably a copyvio ~ 61.91.191.10 04:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete per Project:Copyleft. No license specified, and the logo indicates that the image came from another web site somewhere. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. This is the only non-article status category, and is not useful enough to warrant keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

No longer relevant as we now do have an Earth guide as an April fool joke. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete - Not an article, not really a travel topic as all the info is covered in Grand_Canyon#Do. -- (WT-en) Tim 12:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure this doesn't quailfy as an article. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 21:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

"a simplified language made up of elements of two or more languages, used as a communication tool between speakers whose native languages are different." ~ 61.91.191.8 15:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Tok Pisin phrasebook; this is much the best known pidign, an official language in PNG, so I'd say make it the target. It already mentions related languages; turn those into links if we develop phrasebooks for them. (WT-en) Pashley 22:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I suspect that best known depends on what geographical area you are from. The first time I heard about Tok Pisin was during this discussion and I suspect if you ask anyone in Southern Africa what the best known Pidgin language is, they will answer Fanakalo. I also doubt that the Tok Pisin phrasebook will be able to list Fanakalo (English/Afrikaans/various African languages) or Russenorsk (Russian/Norwegian) as related, since Pidgin languages are almost always regional and do not share a lot in common with each other. Redirecting Pidgin to one specific language does not seem to make sense. See the pidgin entry for more information. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Redirect to List of phrasebooks; Redirecting to Tok Pisin would make about as much sense as making all romance languages point to Spanish. (WT-en) Texugo 05:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I wouldn't object to redirecting to the list rather than to Tok Pisin, if (and only if) there are other pidgin languages listed there. It's not obvious to me that there are. Am I missing any? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't think there are any others (yet). I also don't have any real objections to redirect to Tok Pisin, I just think it makes more sense to redirect to something a bit more generic. Sooner or later another pidgin language is bound to be added. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Not linked to from anywhere, has no content, was created by an extlink spammer. ~ 61.91.191.4 23:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - London is already districted, if a new one needs to be created the user should discuss on the talk page... is that area already covered within one of the current districts? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Is a valid town/district of London, just need some content... London/South West has an entry for an uncreated London/Richmond, which is the same thing. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Daniel's argument convinces me. Should the London/South West article be modified to point to this one? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:53, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


Nevermind, I have changed this to a redirect to Kaliningrad Oblast. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 11:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Changed to redirect Amur Oblast. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 11:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Not an article, should be covered in Ibiza or resort articles. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Discuss first. I can imagine parasailing as a valid travel topic, notwithstanding the current content of the article. If there's a sense that it could be made into a topical article, let's make it so rather than deleting. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Superseded by Special:Log/delete ~ 61.91.191.10 18:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. Yes, it's out of date, but it contains archival information that's useful. Keeping it does no harm. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


  • Delete per Project:What is an article?. To the author: please also read Project:Don't tout. The edits are appreciated, but please try to use a tone of sharing travel advice rather than advertising. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Update: per below a speedy delete sounds OK by me, but I'd ask that we wait at least a day or two just in case the original author returns. Seeing an article with a VFD tag on it is one way to inform contributors that their contribution is appreciated but not in quite the right format, while if the user returns and finds the article missing they may just simply recreate it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Speedly delete? -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:26, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete. Definitely not an article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Deleted -Speedy, not an article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 02:28, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Despite my other redirects, this article should still go - it is a defunct region by the new hierarchy and does not correspond to any new regions. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 11:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - non article -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 19:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete, after someone who knows Seattle decides if content is worth moving there. Doesn't look it to me, but seems worth asking. (WT-en) Pashley 04:34, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
  • There's already a handful of sleeps in Seattle. According to the article, this place has rat traps and smells like cat pee. Probably not worth mentioning. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Several Images by User:(WT-en) Dingle

[edit]

Has uploaded several images of people without model releases. They aren't really useful to the traveler either. Also never responded to a message on his talk page.

Also Image:Ventry1a.jpg which is a duplicate of Image:Ventry1.jpg -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 15:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This article supposedly should not exist, it should be under the city page. (WT-en) amssports06, 11 April 2007

  • The info for this attraction has been moved to the article for Dearborn, and I've turned this page into a redirect to that article. This shouldn't need any further action. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete, butsomeone that knows Singapore might want to check if any of that info is reusable elsewhere --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's a street in Singapore/Little India, but not a very well known one, and doesn't need even a redirect. The "info" is just a badly disguised plug by a hotel on the street. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:42, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted

Delete - Nothing but blatant advertising by one single company, the article name being their website name. (WT-en) Texugo 00:41, 2 May 2007 (EDT) Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete. - Same as Real race. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 01:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT) Outcome: Speedy deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2007&oldid=4924052"