Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/August 2011

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← July 2011 Votes for deletion archives for August 2011 (current) September 2011 →

Despite the continued existence of the American Airlines article, we haven't generally allowed airline articles so far, and I don't see a reason to maintain an article for one that no longer exists. Maybe there is somewhere to redirect it?

  • Delete or Redirect - (WT-en) texugo 09:50, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Comment No article on Delta? Time to create Airlines, just to move the content to, and later to merge its details to content on Delta? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:55, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
That's kinda my point. Airline articles were never really given the go-ahead in the first place, and this and the American Airlines articles were the only ones created. (WT-en) texugo 23:57, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
Maybe even better idea could be to merge NWA and AA articles into Airlines, thus both giving a start to a travel topic with enough content, showing those considering to add another airline how it could look like, and also make the floodgates less open than they are now with existence of dedicated articles on individual airlines. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:43, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
Either articles on all airlines should be allowed or the article on American Airlines should be deleted. And since I don't think the article on AA, which seems useful to me, should be deleted, I would have to dissent with any decision to disapprove of any other airline guides. That is, unless merging them all into Airlines is really the best policy. Right now, there is no such article, and I would think it would be very long and unwieldy, if it were to cover for every airline what American Airlines covers for one. My proposal would be to Redirect Northwest Airlines to an article about Delta and encourage the creation of new articles about airlines that are informative and not promotional. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 22:35, 23 April 2011 (EDT)
Since this discussion is becoming more about policy than about a specific VFD, please use Project:What is an article#later from Talk:Travel topics: Airlines travel topic, where this has already been discussed at some length. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 23 April 2011 (EDT)
Given that the company is no longer operating, is any of the info relevant anymore? If not I'd say delete. Discussion on the proposed Airlines article hasn't advanced to action yet. Deleting this will at least eliminate one factor in the debate. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 22:28, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

It looks like a copyrighted image from istockphoto

  • Delete - (WT-en) Shaund 22:54, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
  • I'm worried about Image:Hot springs.jpg, too. It's found in the same article (Banff) and uploaded by the same user. I can find the hot spring image used here, at a higher resolution but with slightly different cropping and sharpness. The two images came from the same source, which I can't find. I suggest looking at all of User:(WT-en) Laura Marshall's uploads, as I'm afraid it looks like she had very little regard for copyright. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:50, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - Delicious but obviously and copyvio (WT-en) Cardboardbird 21:42, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Deleted - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 09:05, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Merge and redirect to Gay and lesbian travel? (WT-en) Eco84 19:52, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

An article for a botanical garden in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. If there's anything useful in the article it could just be moved to Kennett Square. (WT-en) Eco84 20:44, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Another Lancashire division like the slew of them vfd'd above in June.

  • Delete or Redirect somewhere - Overzealous subdivision. (WT-en) texugo 09:49, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Lancashire, although a delete is very tempting given the amount of messing around there has been with our Lancashire and Greater Manchester articles, and the amount of time wasted clearing those up. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Outcome. Redirected to Lancashire. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:55, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Article copied from Wikipedia about a very specific type of travel permit applicable to Indian citizens only. Doesn't really merit its own article. (WT-en) texugo 01:46, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

It is valid information about travel, and might be a search term, so I'd say the obvious thing is merge & redirect. However, I'm not at all sure where to merge to. India? A region that includes these provinces? (WT-en) Pashley 20:52, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Merge into India#Get around and redirect there, perhaps as a sub-section.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image, and that damnable ampersand causes all sorts of issues when viewing and editing the page - this link should work for viewing the image page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:20, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Promotional image for a bed & breakfast. I've orphaned it since images of hotels aren't typically allowed, so this can now be deleted. Because of the ampersand in the file name this link should work for viewing the image page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:28, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This image page isn't actually an image, it simply displays Image:I-75 shield.png. I'm not sure what the idea behind that was - there aren't any links to this page - so I'm nominating it for deletion since it seems unnecessary. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:07, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
    • This filename would be more conventional than the actual filename is, but that's an issue for Commons, I suppose. It looks like Eco was trying to create a redirect, but our version of MediaWiki doesn't support redirects to the Image namespace. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:03, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and at only 178x118 it's too small to be of much use in any article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. The current version is a tiny thumbnail that is a clear VFD, but it looks like someone accidentally uploaded a different image on top of the original. The original, however, is so blurry as to be unusable, so I'd suggest deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This image is orphaned, and while the uploader claimed to own the copyright of this map there is some question based on the variety of different image quality, size and naming that were uploaded by this user, so it's probably safest to delete it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

The four images below were uploaded from what appears to be a shared account that was used for a class project.

  • Delete. Orphaned image with a copyright notice on it and no indication that it can be re-licensed under the CC-SA. Also a duplicate of Image:Spaceworld.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. The size, arrangement, lighting, and image quality make this almost certainly a commercial image, and there is no indication that it can be re-licensed under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This one may actually be legitimate, but given the issues by the other three it's probably safest to err on the side of caution.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was apparently uploaded to promote a specific bar, something that is typically discouraged on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was apparently uploaded to promote a specific bar, something that is typically discouraged on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Three copies of the same image, all orphaned, and all apparently uploaded to promote a specific hotel, something that is typically discouraged on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned map that looks like it was taken from a web site, and there is no indication of source or that it can be licensed under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was apparently uploaded to promote a hotel in the CitiHoliday chain, something that is typically discouraged on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was apparently uploaded to promote a hotel in the CitiHoliday chain, something that is typically discouraged on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, non-travel related logo for a school in Bangalore. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, non-travel related commercial image for a school in Bangalore. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a police vehicle, and at just 143x93 it's unlikely that this could ever be useful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a non-notable business in Ho Chi Minh City. While this may not have been uploaded for promotional purposes, under current site guidelines it is unlikely to be an image that could ever be used in an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, low-quality image of a non-notable business in Ho Chi Minh City. While this may not have been uploaded for promotional purposes, under current site guidelines it is unlikely to be an image that could ever be used in an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a business interior in Ho Chi Minh City. While this may not have been uploaded for promotional purposes, under current site guidelines it is unlikely to be an image that could ever be used in an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned photograph of a map of the Montreal metro. The file is licensed "public domain", but the map that is the subject of the photo is copyrighted by the Montreal transit authority so without their permission this cannot be legally used here. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned map of Chicago that has been superseded by newer versions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep. I've re-added it to the main Chicago article, as it details the three-level streets downtown (crazy traffic patterns!), which no other map of ours does (or can do). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:14, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Airport articles are discouraged, and although ATL is busy, it's largely a transfer airport and not exceptionally complex or isolated -- doesn't really fit into the exceptions, and the useful bits from the article could easily transfer into Atlanta without overburdening it.

    • Seems like a transfer airport is a better candidate for a standalone article, because the majority of passengers using it don't care about Atlanta and just want to know how to get around the airport. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
  • How do you figure it isn't an exception? The example exceptions are Kansai and Heathrow, both of which are smaller airports than Atlanta in terms of land area, number of passengers moved, number of flights, and number of destinations. —(WT-en) BigPeteB 09:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
I should have been more specific perhaps. My memories of Atlanta are that it is not especially complex or interesting, and as it handles relatively few international flights, has only run-of-the-mill shopping and dining options. Kansai and Heathrow are the direct opposite of those factors. The article bears that out by not being very long, and could easily be merged into Atlanta. Heathrow and Kansai by contrast would seriously over-burden their respective city articles. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Okay, now I understand your point. In that case (and it's easier to see this in hindsight than when I started the article) I agree that there's really not much info in spite of it being such a large airport, and it could easily be merged. I'm happy to do that sometime next week after I get back from a trip. —(WT-en) BigPeteB 11:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Merge and delete - I agree with what Dguillaime said: "not exceptionally complex or isolated" = "doesn't really fit into the exceptions". (WT-en) texugo 09:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be a redirect, but the arguments for merging seem persuasive. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Actually, I meant merge and re-direct also. That creates an easy search term which our crappy search engine will recognise. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Result: Merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Images from User:Laura Marshall

The following uploads from User:(WT-en) Laura Marshall are low-resolution and appear to have been taken off the web. No authorship or licensing information is included.

  • Image:Banff Avenue Summerweb.jpg
    • Found higher-res version of image here; note the clouds as proof it's the same.
    • Delete unless the uploader can provide some indication that this actually can be used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Image:390.jpg
    • Found high-res version of image here.
    • Delete unless the uploader can provide some indication that this actually can be used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Image:Rocky Mtneer.jpg
    • Found higher-res (but differently cropped) version of image here; note the clouds. This is not the source for the image Laura Marshall uploaded, but it's clear they came from the same source image.
    • Delete unless the uploader can provide some indication that this actually can be used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Image:Hot springs.jpg
    • Found higher-res (but differently cropped) version of image here; they clearly came from the same source image.
    • Delete unless the uploader can provide some indication that this actually can be used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Image:Springs1.jpg
    • There is one very widespread image of this resort that is very similar but clearly taken at a different time than this one. Nonetheless, it's so low-res as to be practically useless, and the resolution does raise copyright suspicions.
    • Delete unless the uploader can provide some indication that this actually can be used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Image:Banff.jpg
    • Can't find this one online, but it's too similar to the others not to include.
    • Delete unless the uploader can provide some indication that this actually can be used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Laura Marshall has at least three other uploads; one was just deleted via VFD discussion; Image:C&Basin2b.jpg is under discussion above; Image:Jasper.JPG appears legit and includes full authorship and licensing information.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 13:00, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:51, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. This is apparently a line drawing of streets in downtown Reno, but in its current form is not usable within a Wikivoyage article and has been superseded by Image:Downtown-Reno2.png. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:15, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable children on a bus with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:15, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned transit map. It has been explicitly re-licensed under the CC-SA, but as an orphaned image there is no need to keep it around per the Project:Deletion policy and getting rid of it may avoid some confusion since images with explicit copyright notices on them are usually not re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:15, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned transit map. It has been explicitly re-licensed under the CC-SA, but as an orphaned image there is no need to keep it around per the Project:Deletion policy and getting rid of it may avoid some confusion since transit maps like this one are usually not re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:15, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This may have been meant for a user page, but it's currently orphaned, non-travel related, and there is no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Various Business Images

The images below were all uploaded before the current image policy was established, but images of non-noteworthy businesses are typically discouraged and these have now been orphaned.

  • Delete. Image of a coffee house. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Image of a coffee house. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Image of a coffee house. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Image of a cafe. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Image of a cafe. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. View from a hotel window. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned map(?). I'm not sure it's high enough quality to be usable even if someone can figure out what it is. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Map scanned from a park brochure, but there is no indication that it can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. The image page states that this was copied from another site, but gives no indication that it can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Map indicates it was scanned from a brochure and that "Verbal approval granted on Nov 18, 2005", but given some questions surrounding the user's other uploads it's not clear that this really can be used CC-SA so it's probably safest to delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. Another scanned Penang image that notes "Verbal approval granted on Nov 18, 2005." However, since this is orphaned, and since the licensing is suspect, deletion seems safe. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete all orphaned images listed here as quickly as possible to de-clutter this page.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2011&oldid=2956478"