Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2011

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← January 2011 Votes for deletion archives for February 2011 (current) March 2011 →

We don't do articles on transportation systems. (WT-en) –sumone10154 21:43, 31 January 2011 (EST)

  • Speedy deleted (WT-en) jan 03:07, 2 February 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Orphaned map of Israel. Being orphaned is enough to warrant deletion, but the image is also tagged as public domain despite being based on a satellite photo - that photo may be public domain, but without any indication of where the original image is from there is also a potential copyvio issue to consider. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a hotel pool. We typically discourage promotional images of hotels, and without even an indication of what hotel this is I fail to see how it could ever be useful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an Australian bus company. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail promoting a B&B. Even if it wasn't an unused promotional image, at 75x65 it's far too small to ever be of any use. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of someone's sandwich. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. All images uploaded by this user are orphaned, all lack license information, and the variety of image quality and size strongly suggests that these were taken from other web sites. Image:Camden.jpg even has a watermark on it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an internet cafe with a recognizable person and no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image for a hostel in Lima. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an apartment rental. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image for an apartment rental. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release provided. This was apparently uploaded to promote a cooking conference of some sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned logo for an NGO in Malta, something that does not seem particularly relevant to creation of travel guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. This image is currently unused and should a world map image be needed then a Wikivoyage-style map would be preferable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:30, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:22, 2 February 2011 (EST)

This is a stub about an unimportant highway and only has a list of cities. (WT-en) Sumone10154 21:57, 16 January 2011 (EST)

  • Delete This one has had two years to become something, its entire content could be better contained in a routebox. --(WT-en) inas 22:58, 16 January 2011 (EST)
  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:10, 17 January 2011 (EST)
  • 15 days have already passed, can someone delete this now? (WT-en) –sumone10154 21:54, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:24, 12 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Created by a new contributor who is obviously very passionate about language opportunities in the town of Mendoza, but this does not meet the Project:What is an article criteria and is primarily a promotional article for a specific language school. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 25 January 2011 (EST)
  • Delete. Some de-touted content can stay but its not an article. (WT-en) jan 06:03, 26 January 2011 (EST)
  • Delete - Not an article, and the text has been placed verbatim on a couple of dozen other sites, including forums at Lonely Planet's website. (WT-en) Texugo 07:59, 26 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:24, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Multiple images for deletion-wrong place

Felix, these and all your followups are on shared instead. Please use the Shared VFD page for them, and tag them as candidates for deletion there instead of here (creating all those image description pages results in a lot more cleanup work on :en). -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:22, 4 February 2011 (EST)
I was Lost in Space...Thanks (WT-en) D. Guillaime, I have shipped them out to WT shared and deleted from this page to reduce clutter. Sorry for my error and thanks. (WT-en) felix 07:05, 5 February 2011 (EST)

I've looked on wikipedia and google maps and I can't find a place with this name (besides streets). (WT-en) –sumone10154 23:26, 30 January 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:47, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that is an advertisement for a tour company, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. These thumbnail images are orphaned and, since the user misunderstood the copyleft license with respect to text contributions, it is probably safer to delete these as potential copyvios as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. Also, the red-eye is kind of creepy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable people with no model releases provided. This was apparently uploaded to promote a specific tour company, something that is typically discouraged. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a bottle of vodka. This looks like a commercial image to me, and there is no indication of original source or that it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. These images are all orphaned, all appear to be promoting a specific business, and may not be licensed CC-SA - two images state "this image is copyrighted" with no indication that it is being licensed for use under the CC-SA, and one is a watercolor with no indication of source. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. These are the same image. Both are orphaned, and both appear to have been uploaded to promote a specific business. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. These images are orphaned and both were copied from various web sites (see the image description pages) without any indication that they can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. At only 225x300 this has been replaced by larger, clearer images of the bridge, so there is no reason to keep this image around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. At only 225x300 this has been replaced by larger, clearer images of the bridge, so there is no reason to keep this image around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. These are all orphaned advertisements for a specific hotel in Turkey, something that is typically discouraged. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Images are all orphaned, and this user's contributions were all vandalism. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned collage image that appears to be promotional in nature. There are also recognizable people in some of the photos without any model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:34, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image of a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image of a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image for a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional image for a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. These are all promotional images for a tour company - two are screen captures of a web site and one is a company logo. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 19 February 2011 (EST)

This is not an itinerary. More an advert. (WT-en) Shep 13:30, 10 January 2011 (EST)

  • Keep (for now). Although it is just a train route is does seem to present scope for further Amtrak system (Itinerary) development. I understand it is the nations second ranked Amtrak journey. Perhaps if the current Acela Express lingers for a while it will afford the opportunity for sister (Itinerary) articles to emerge that may detail some of the other Amtrak routes. I note that one such sister article already exists. Empire Builder (Itinerary) appears to complement this Acela Express article. If the sort of detail currently presented in Acela Express were to be merged into the current travel topic article Rail travel in the United States then it may become a little bloated if subsequently complemented by detail on other significant Amtrak routes. The current bulk of detail on Acela Express could also be somewhat overbearing within the current Amtrak content in the Rail travel in the United States article. I guess the issue is one of considering if the route is significant and the information within is of benefit to the traveller. However (WT-en) inas is quite correct to voice caution, we do not want to see articles emerging on local bus services and commuter trips. Amtrak is a State icon and the nations trunk passenger operator. Hopefully that delineates sufficient icon and significance status. (WT-en) felix 22:30, 10 January 2011 (EST)
There is nothing iconic or particularly significant about this trip. It is a standard, albeit popular, train running between major east coast cities. Its isn't a tourist train. It isn't one of America's great train journeys. It just a utilitarian form of transport running between East Coast cities.. If we allow a separate article for this train, I can't see any remaining criteria to exclude any inter-city train route. This really is a train that you just turn up at the station and catch to get to where you are going. It's probably even better just moved to the Get in sections of the relevant destinations. It is not an itinerary, as you would only take the train if it was where you were going in the first place. The other examples given above are actually trains that you may go out of your way to catch, because they are journeys in themselves. This one isn't. --(WT-en) inas 22:56, 10 January 2011 (EST)
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, there doesn't seem to be any clear policy to support a deletion, and since we already have articles about trains there is a precedent set for keeping this article. Similar issues were raised concerning cruise ships and not resolved. I'd suggest trying to clarify a policy on such articles at Project:Deletion policy, but until then I'm not sure that there is a precedent to delete this particular article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:20, 10 January 2011 (EST)
The policy I am relying on, is that that it is too fine grained. We don't create articles for each individual attraction, each individual bus company, or each individual train that services a destination, we incorporate them into destination guides (or sometimes travel topics/itineraries). We have some (legitimate) exceptions for some train journeys that constitute destinations in themselves. However, I don't see those in anyway setting a precedent for an article on what is very nearly a commuter train. There are several train "brands" that run the route between D.C. and NY. The information from this article could be contained in 1-2 lines of prose in those articles. --(WT-en) inas 00:03, 11 January 2011 (EST)
I'm going to go with (WT-en) Inas on this one. This is a very short ride used mostly by business travellers, and the article consists of only a list of stops plus information about amenities that is essentially the same for all Amtrak lines, duplicated from the US rail travel article. Even if we give it a year, I cannot imagine what useful stuff could possibly be added. This is not an itinerary-- if someone created a crazy shotgun itinerary like The Eastern Seaboard in a Day that utilized this line, fine, but the line by itself will never be suited to an itinerary and thus shouldn't be an article.
The currently unagreed-upon policy indicates that this type of thing should start in the parent topic (Rail travel in the US) and be split out if necessary (which is subjective). The splitting out here hasn't really added any information that couldn't be handled with a routebox, rendering the article redundant. Anyway, even if you say the deletion policy is a bit unclear, I'd say that in spite of that-- or perhaps because of it-- if we can agree here to delete it then we should. Just because there are a very few existing articles for tourist trains, mostly famous ones that take several days to traverse, does not to me imply a precedent that we must keep for a whole year any and every train article that pops up. On the contrary, not even allowing a discussion to delete this kind of stuff sets the opposite precedent in that if this utilitarian 3 1/2 hour train line is given a years' chance to become something besides a glorified list, I could easily create a couple hundred such articles for high speed lines here in Japan and we'd have to sit on those for a year too. Waiting for consensus on the policy is already taking a long time-- postponing all related vfds until such time is unnecessary. Is anybody claiming we should keep this on its own merits rather than just because policy is unclear? Let's just focus on this article-- does it actually seem like it has potential to ever develop into an itinerary on its own? I say absolutely not. (WT-en) Texugo 00:10, 11 January 2011 (EST)
In that case, Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service should be deleted as well (both are shorter than Acela Express). (WT-en) Sumone10154 20:41, 12 January 2011 (EST)
  • Keep, for now anyway. I agree with Ryan that there is no clear deletion rationale (especially in light of the existence of several other long-standing articles following the same format), and that we should resolve this question off the vfd page. I suggest we take the discussion to Talk:Rail travel in the United States. --Peter 22:27, 12 January 2011 (EST)
I think the rational is perfectly clear...
Please see Project:What is an article. We do not create articles about transport systems or stations. This is clearly an article about a transport system.
Although we have a few train articles, this one is such that if we let it pass, we are accepting that Wikivoyage now accepts articles about transport systems without having to pass any threshold or exception criteria. This is a change to WIAA, and that argument should be taken up there.
I'm not saying this would necessarily a bad thing, but we should consider it there, rather than creating a new class of articles about transport systems under a pretence they are really itineraries. --(WT-en) inas 22:50, 12 January 2011 (EST)
I think I effectively agree with you, except for what process would be ideal to resolve the question. Vfds can be a contentious way of resolving disputes, and especially in the case of deciding what to do with a new page created by an excellent new contributor (and given that it was quite reasonably created in the model of other existing articles), I think it would be wise to discuss how to present this content on a different page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:28, 12 January 2011 (EST)
Although in theory that may be the case, policy discussions can bog down, and articles can easily stray when discussion is localised to discussion pages of limited interest. VFD gives an urgency to the discussion, and in the past has done a better job of forcing a community consensus of the interpretation of our current policy in a way than pages like Talk:Rail travel in the United States.
This vfd seems to be heading towards an odd conclusion. No one really seems to be in strong support of the article concept, however, we seem unable to delete it because we can't interpret our own policy to do so. --(WT-en) inas 00:25, 13 January 2011 (EST)
Precisely—because we lack a clear deletion rationale. I know you argue that there is one, but the fact that others disagree would imply that it's not terribly clear. In such cases, we should table the vfd and start a discussion. We're all reasonable people here (save the Mandarmani phone number changers), so we should be able to work out how to best present this type of content via the standard practice of discussion and consensus, in the grand wiki tradition. If we can't, then we deserve to get bogged down. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:43, 13 January 2011 (EST)
I would, of course, like to see the policy sealed up to avoid this kind of article creation, but I would still contend that a consensus to delete in any individual case should still take precedence over any overarching guidelines we might have, so I don't think it's good to shelve the vfd, because, as with the bodies of water discussion, it may take months or years, and letting this kind of thing pile up in the meantime seems to eventually lend more credence to the case of those who argue to keep them. (WT-en) Texugo 01:29, 13 January 2011 (EST)
And, I really would like to understand what is unclear about a rational based on deleting a transport system article, when we have a clear policy that we don't have articles on transport systems. So far the only disagreement I have seen that there is a no clear deletion rational is simply stating that as a fact. In any event, we shouldn't be afraid to give a meaning to our own policies. If the meaning we decide is that this kind of article is permitted, then all well and good. Words will always require interpretation. We wouldn't need this process at all if the policy was always definitive and clear. --(WT-en) inas 20:13, 13 January 2011 (EST)
Because we do allow itinerary articles for train routes, such as the ones linked above. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:34, 13 January 2011 (EST)
But have they been tested against policy in the vfd process? If not, then we have not make a decision to "allow" them. There are comments on the articles themselves, questioning the need for them. This one is being tested against policy, and we should interpret the policy, and decide if the article complies. If other similar articles have been selected for vfd, then similar reasoning may apply here. But we can't just shelve this vfd because noone has been bothered to nominate other similar articles, and the existence of the other articles doesn't make the policy any less clear. --(WT-en) inas 23:13, 13 January 2011 (EST)
→ Talk:Palace on Wheels --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:37, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Yes, I know that one - I put it there the day before yesterday. Back to square one. That article was justified on the basis that it was an itinerary, and therefore in line with our policy. In any event, it is a tourist train. This one is just about the train - the transport system. Are you claiming the same reasoning applies to this article as applied in the vfd for Palace on Wheels. If so, then say so. --(WT-en) inas 22:30, 14 January 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. I am with Inas on this one. This article (Acela Express), Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service are not Itineraries and dont look to me like they ever will be what I would consider an itinerary. Palace on Wheels and Trans Siberian Railway are itineraries in that it is plausible that a traveller will choose to make the trip for its own sake, not just to get from one point on the line to another, Ask yourself if you can imagine a person in his right mind deciding to make a trip on the Acela Express because it looks like an entertaining way of spending some free time. The Trans Siberian and Palace on Wheels pass this test for me. If someone else were to pay I would cheerfully do both trips. The Acela does not. I can not imagine someone saying, "Hey I think I will take the Acela this weekend, it looks a fun ride. I can get to point X in time to catch the return flight/bus trip/whatever. I could imagine this for the Palace on Wheels, anf the Trans-Siberian appears to be an expedition all by itself, and certainly provides a fine way to see large expanses of countryside. Unless the Acela provides extensive exposure to scenic beauty or on board entertainment (and so far there is no evidence of either), I suggest it does not qualify as an Itinerary and therefore qualifies for deletion. Same argument for Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service. Unless they provide some form of entertainment in the form of scenic views, which is sufficient to justify travelling on them for that reason alone, they should go. If there is any information worth keeping , merge it into Rail travel in the United States. Compare the article with Empire Builder which actually describes what you can expect to see during the journey. Empire Builder therfore makes it as an itinerary for me (but only just). I would consider travelling by that train as an alternative way of getting between two points on the route because of what can be seen on the way. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 10:26, 15 January 2011 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect to Rail travel in the United States. I do not think this meets criteria for a standalone article; see policy citations above. On the other hand, we should not just delete it; that would waste the work someone has done and lose the information. Acela Express works fine as a redirect; it is a plausible search term. (WT-en) Pashley 21:00, 15 January 2011 (EST)
  • OK, I will go with a Merge and Redirect to Rail Travel in the United States and recommend the same for Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:50, 16 January 2011 (EST)
What about Empire Builder, California Zephyr and Empire Builder. (WT-en) felix 10:08, 16 January 2011 (EST)
I think Empire Builder has more going as an itinerary, but possibly not enough. California Zephyr is much the same. Perhaps they should all be merged into Rail travel in the United States. Then if anyone builds them up sufficiently, they could be split off as sub-articles of RT in the US. Frankly, I dont think this is likely, and I think they will all stay in the Routes section of RT in the US more or less as they are, as there probably isnt that much more to say about them. Has anyone asked the people who started the articles what thy had in mind? • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 12:54, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Sorry I didn't read through Project:What is an article? carefully; since there was already Blue Water Service, I assumed it would be ok to create Acela Express. Maybe we should make it more clear in Project:What is an article?#Exceptions that trains that are attractions (like Trans-Siberian Railway) are ok but trains like Acela Express are not. (WT-en) Sumone10154 08:13, 17 January 2011 (EST)

So, is someone going to do something about this? Or is every administrator just going to let this stay here forever? It's been here for 6 weeks already. (WT-en) –sumone10154 21:43, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Typically when a VFD is far from consensus it stays open for a while to provide as much opportunity as possible for the underlying issues to be resolved. If there's no activity for a long time then it will eventually be closed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:43, 17 February 2011 (EST)
There has been no activity for a month, is that long enough? (WT-en) –sumone10154 13:41, 18 February 2011 (EST)
Per policy any admin is technically allowed to close a VFD after 14 days, even if there is no clear consensus (the policy is that a VFD must achieve a "consensus to keep", otherwise the topic in question is deleted). However, I'm personally very interested in seeing some clarity in our policies regarding transportation lines, and as a result I haven't closed this VFD in the hope that someone will try again to move it to closure. That's obviously a bit selfish, so if you or anyone else sees a good reason to close this discussion now please state it, but "14 days are up" doesn't seem compelling enough to make me want to end this (admittedly stale) discussion - understand that wikis are frustratingly slow, particularly when it comes to achieving a consensus on anything, but given enough time things usually get done. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:58, 18 February 2011 (EST)
"14 days are up" might not be a compelling reason, but I think "1 month without any activity" would be a good reason. By the way, I was the one who created this article and the only contributor so I'm just going to redirect it to Rail travel in the United States along with Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service. (WT-en) –sumone10154 14:11, 18 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Rail travel in the United States along with Blue Water Service and Wolverine Service (WT-en) –sumone10154 20:01, 22 February 2011 (EST)

  • Delete. An empty page without any information, and even if it did, all the information could be included in routeboxes. (WT-en) –sumone10154 17:17, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:32, 27 February 2011 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2011&oldid=4924272"