Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2006

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in July 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/June 2006 or Project:Votes for deletion/August 2006 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

  • Delete. A "what up to my homies" page that was blanked. Wikipedia doesn't list any place by this name, but maybe someone has heard of one. Delete otherwise. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:22, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Maybe redirect to Tomar? That's what I thought of when I saw it... (WT-en) Majnoona 01:11, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
    • It doesn't seem worth the effort to redirect to a nonexistent page. Just delete the thing. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:23, 1 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Since there isn't anything to redirect to I agree with Bill. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:33, 2 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Two articles for the same village because Ross in Tasmania is more precise keep this one. There are several Ross at Wikivoyage. I guess, we need a disambiguation side. Could somebody do it, who knows how? (WT-en) Jan 09:06, 03 July 2006 (EDT)
Where is the other "Ross"? If there is more than one town named Ross, the Tasmania one should be Ross (Tasmania). It doesn't need a delete, just a move. Ross in Tasmania can then redirect to Ross (Tasmania). (WT-en) Majnoona 11:20, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
Ops, I should have looked at the link more closely! I'll make the Project:Disambiguation page as I just remembered there's a least one other Ross (in Marin County California). (WT-en) Majnoona 11:25, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
I took the vfd out of the Ross page because Michele turned it into a disambiguation side. There are 8 cities called Ross. I will add the other Ross on the disambiguation page. (WT-en) Jan 02:38, 4 July 2006 (EDT)
  • I was tempted to speedy-delete this, for reasons that are obvious when you try to read the article, but on reflection, it may be worth a brief discussion of what to do about stuff on an English-language wiki that's not in English. To speedy-delete or not to speedy-delete? That is the question. Is there something more productive to do with it? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:50, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep for a few days until the author realizes his/her mistake. A non-English article is obviously not appropriate for an English language site (What language is that? And what is the article about?) but rather than just getting rid of it let's give the author a chance to comment and perhaps move it somewhere more appropriate. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:01, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
  • So this article is about a cycling event in Belarus. The article itself is in Lithuanian (I originally thought Latvian). Moon ra attempted to remove the vfd notice. He responded to my comments and asked about starting a Lithuanian version of Wikivoyage. I also asked him/her to translate, and I'd appreciate if other users would do the same and encourage that the article be translated to English so we can see if it complies with the what is an article policy. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 15:32, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
    • If it can be translated it would probably be better to incorporate the information within either the Latvia article or, if it's specific to a region of Latvia, the appropriate region article. With the exception of sporting events that draw millions of visitors and have their own unique logistics (like World Cup 2006 or the Olympics) we generally haven't kept individual articles on sport events. Also, to clarify your comment above, it's OK for anyone to work with another user to get content in-line with policy, and not just admins. The only thing special about an admin is that they've been named as glorified janitors and given a few extra cleanup buttons. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:47, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
  • I think that probably the best thing to do here is try to engage the contributor. Does a Lithuanian Wikivoyage Expedition make sense here? Possibly. Does a translated article about the cycle event make sense? Probably not. --(WT-en) Evan 18:14, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep. Moved to user page, where it will be worked on as the seed of an itinerary in English. --(WT-en) Evan 20:50, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
    • He/she did ask about creating an opportunity for Lithuanian speakers. If you look at the user's talk page I did recommend he/she consider looking into creating a language expedition. Hopefully, he/she will be interested. - Sapphire
    • Meanwhile, the non-English article is expanding rapidly. I sense a slippery slope under construction here... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:37, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Hello folks. I appreciate your concerns and suggestions (even rather nasty speed-deletion option:). Meanwhile I repeat my explanation,which i've already wrote to (WT-en) Sapphire (where is a whole text? - User talk:(WT-en) Moon ra). This article is not about simple cycling sport event. This is cultural travel. Call it expedition if you wish, but there is no fun. The reasons why article not in english is that at the present it serves mainly as coordination platform and information repository site about possible route, sightseeing opptions, etc., and obviously to translate multiple users information, which has tendency to change rapidly would be more than difficult. Since it's intented to be a trip to rather remote and closed country (Belarus) the information should be important for other people as well, if they ever consider visit these places, cause there is simply no such kind of information available elsewhere. Thus I insist not to delete article but allow us to keep on preparing information. I will personaly translate it after the end of our trip (after June 9th) and that will be shorter version than is now (more addapted to public use). I would suggest to make deletion deadline till 16th June. Regards, User:(WT-en) Moon ra, 27 June 2006
  • So what's the resolution here? I'm glad to see that a possible expedition is being spawned by this, and what people have on their user pages is their own business (within reason). But can/should the Gudija Latvija 2006 redirect page be removed? Now that it can be without hindering the expedition, I propose to do so, unless there's a reason not to. Advise quickly, please. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:30, 4 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Per the agreement with Moon ra Evan moved the page and Moon ra only asked that a redirect be in place for a few days. I say remove the redirect and if it really is so important for users we can recreate it later. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 10:35, 4 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not an article. Content is also copyvio. Anything worth saving should be merged into Sacramento. We occasionally redirect these types of articles, but the spelling and capitalization of "sacremento" makes this a better candidate for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:59, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

See Project:Stubs needing attention#Delete the Stub/Outline/Etc Articles Needing Attention? for discussion & resolution

  • Redirect to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub. This list is out-of-date, impossible to maintain, and confusing for new users. Viewing what links to Template:Stub shows what are stub articles, and the individual article talk pages are a more appropriate place for discussion about an article's status. There has been some discussion about this issue on Project:Stubs needing attention, but posting here to get a bit more visibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:27, 2 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Keep, and keep the ones below as well. The fact that they aren't being maintained doesn't mean they can't be maintained, and if they could be kept up to date, they'd provide a useful service that's immediately obvious rather than requiring a "trick" to use. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:34, 2 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:52, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

See Project:Stubs needing attention#Delete the Stub/Outline/Etc Articles Needing Attention? for discussion & resolution

See Project:Stubs needing attention#Delete the Stub/Outline/Etc Articles Needing Attention? for discussion & resolution

See Project:Stubs needing attention#Delete the Stub/Outline/Etc Articles Needing Attention? for discussion & resolution

  • Delete. (WT-en) Andrew added this as a test and put a note on the talk page that it should be deleted on July 21. Adding here so that we don't forget. -- (WT-en) Ryan 05:00, 6 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 15:11, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Not an article. Speedy-delete? Please do the honors, as I'm at work and can't admin from here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:58, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A list is not generally appropriate: Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Colin 11:57, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
  • There are exceptions; e.g List of Indian states and union territories and List of Chinese provinces and regions. Could and should this list become something like that? (WT-en) Pashley 20:06, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Russia has too many cities for a list to be practical, and a better way to handle this would be eventually to build something based on isIn that can build a hierarchy of what "isIn" Russia, rather than try to manually maintain a list. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:33, 2 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I've moved this page to a utility talk page, Talk:Russia/List of Russian cities. It may be useful as input for organizing Russia's geographical hierarchy. --(WT-en) Evan 15:04, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
    • It seems useful on the talk page; there are an awful lot of important Russian cities for which there aren't any articles yet. But is there any reason not to delete the original page itself? Not obvious to me. I'd say remove the VFD banner from the talk page and delete the original. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:14, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Housesteads is a Roman fort and associated settlement a few kilometres out of Hexham. I believe it is adequately mentioned on the Hexham page, and as an attraction, I feel it is not deserving of an article of its own. (WT-en) Water 14:20, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

  • It's not whether it "deserves" an article, it's whether it meets the criteria for one. Can you sleep there? If so, it's separate enough to have its own article. If not, treating it as a section of Hexham seems right, but would probably best be accomplished via a redirect rather than a deletion, since Housesteads is a place name that crops up in various places. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:37, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
    • No; you can't sleep there: it consists of a museum, a shop, a café, some ruins and that's about it. When I said 'deserves', I had in fact read the criteria and concluded that it did not fulfil them: I probably should have made my meaning clearer. I shall create a redirect from both the s-less and correct versions of the name to Hexham, then. 62.252.224.13 15:50, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
    • The above comment was me: the software logged me out for some reason. (WT-en) Water 15:52, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Hexham. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:33, 2 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect. --(WT-en) Evan 15:09, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Looks like there's a consensus on this one. Any reason not to go ahead and pronounce it redirected and resolved? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:11, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Another part of Tokyo/Harajuku. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:20, 24 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 03:56, 24 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I've made it a redirect; content was already copied to Tokyo/Harajuku. --(WT-en) Evan 15:09, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not every redirect accomplishes something useful. Could anyone credibly mistake this for a destination? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:07, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Consensus seems to be for delete on the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" principle. One last call for dissent, then it's gone... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:18, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
      • OK, I'll try this again. Keep, I've made it a redirect to the right article. Of course someone could mistake this for a destination; someone created this article, after all. A redirect has barely any cost for the project and is a nice way to prevent someone making this same mistake again. --(WT-en) Evan 12:32, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep as a redirect. Would be nice if #REDIRECT Tokyo/Harajuku#Yoyogi_Park would take you directly to a ===Yoyogi Park=== section within the Tokyo/Harajuku guide... 125.24.4.216 13:20, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

StatScript has finally been upgraded to use the internal raw stats output, so the Wikivoyage:NumberOfArticles pages on all language versions are obsolete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:50, 5 July 2006 (EDT)

I updated this map. The new map is Vercors_roads2.gif. I do not think the old map will be of any use now. Sorry for the inconveinience...
(WT-en) Berru 15:35, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
I have the same problem with Vercors Landscape map.jpg, that I recently updated in Vercors Landscape map.gif. So sorry... (WT-en) Berru 19:13, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

  • A thinly-veiled ad for a commercial provider. Doesn't look like an article to me, but should probably be discussed before it is deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:55, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. There may be a travel topic hiding around there somewhere, but that ain't it. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:05, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This warrants at most a one-sentence mention (without the link) in Tips for flying, not a whole article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:10, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. However, this is a surprisingly big topic, and I do think there should be links to not this site, but SeatGuru and SeatExpert, the two biggest seat data sites. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:32, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
    • I wonder, Jani, why you want to see it deleted even if you think it's a big topic. --(WT-en) Evan 20:18, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
    • It's a big topic in the sense that there are multiple other sites devoted to it, but I don't think it really falls within Wikivoyage's scope anymore. Is it really our mission in life to start maintaining seat maps of every airplane of every airline out there? (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:18, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Berru (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. If this is a big travel topic, as JPatokal says, it's probably worth having on the site. We have similar discussions about on-line services at e.g. Hospitality exchange. --(WT-en) Evan 13:45, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
    • What is there for us to say about any of these sites, beyond telling people that such services exist? Take the brand-specific promotional verbiage off this page, and you're left with a stub, to which we can add little but an "External link farm" section. Merge and redirect to Tips for flying. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:02, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. I'd find this a usful topic myself. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is a useful topic and as the internet empowers people more and more. This type of travel topic serves as an educational topic, giving consumers the tools to make informed flying decisions. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) FantasticFlyer (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree that it seems to be a thinly-veiled ad. I'm picky about where I sit on airplanes, but I don't understand us covering this. Worth a mention in some article somewhere that these sites exist, I guess (though I'm not drawn to them). (WT-en) OldPine 21:30, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete for the same reason OldPine and Jani give. -- Sappphire
  • Keep and expand scope. I've updated the page to look more like an overview of the topic. However I don't think there's a whole article in Airplane seat maps, but there might be one in Choosing an airplane seat, given that there are all kinds of competing issues with children, emergency rows, aisle, window... links to a few of these sites would be part of that. (WT-en) Hypatia 21:37, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Do you feel the expanded scope will exceed what will fit in Tips for flying? -- (WT-en) Colin 21:53, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
      • I don't think that's easy to answer given the size of some of our articles: it would certainly merit a big independent section. But I think it could be about the same size as First and business class travel if done comprehensively, and that has an independent article. (WT-en) Hypatia 21:58, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Move the content to Tips for flying. For travel topics the attitude seems to be that anything that might ever be useful to someone can have its own article, but I don't think that's helpful. The guidelines in Project:What is an article?#Exceptions state: "In general, a good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, and events should always be initially placed into the article for the place they're located in, and only when that information becomes large and complex should a new article be considered." Why not apply this guideline to travel topics, too? In this case move the content to the more general Tips for flying, and if the section on airline seat maps ever grows to a point where a separate article is called for then it can be created. As of right now, a separate article isn't warranted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:15, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
    • What Ryan said. 202.156.2.35 23:57, 24 July 2006 (EDT) (Jpatokal)
    • I've added material to Tips for flying to cover this topic. Unless anyone has additional information about Airplane seat maps to add... {crickets chirping}... that really ought to be adequate for now. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:42, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
      • I also added the two sites suggested by Jani - they aren't clearly in line with Project:External links, but we do include similar links in a lot of travel topic articles, so hopefully they're OK. With that done I'd be fine with redirecting this article to Tips for flying. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:03, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
        • Added on a little more and made it its own subsection. I think we have a consensus now that this can be deleted/redirected. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:37, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, possibly speedy. A quick search doesn't find any place with this name. Brought to us by the same user who brought us "Red" and other fun might-be-a-place-can-you-look-it-up-for-me destinations. The author even put it on the vfd page after creating. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:03, 13 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Is it here? -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:01, 13 July 2006 (EDT)
      • Probably; the kid lives in Maine. But just because he found this word on a map doesn't mean it's a valid article topic. Keep in mind that Wikivoyage is not meant to be an atlas, but a travel guide, so specks on the map that will never be able to fill out Template:smallcity (which is what this appears to be) should not be the subjects of articles. Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I don't think he can read a map.... but he's long since run out of actual city names and has started making sh guessing placenames. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:41, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect either to Oxford County or to Maine. ~ 125.24.4.216 09:00, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Bogus "place", and worse yet, no article about it. 24.34.195.0 15:50, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Created by article creation troll. Evan made this a redirect, but I see no reason for this to exist. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:39, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:08, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:15, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • whats wrong with driving in portland? routes and so forth
  • The "Get around" section of the city article should describe the basics about getting around the city. Anything more than that is more detail than a travel guide should bother with. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:33, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. --(WT-en) Evan 15:28, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not a big enough city/topic for it's own article. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

(The next three are from a duplicate listing):

  • Delete. Not an article. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:15, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Highway_1 —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 169.244.166.2 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
    • You must not have read the reason I provided. Highways do not automatically get articles, unlike cities. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:17, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. 24.34.195.0 15:53, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to U.S. Highway 1 (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 12:58, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. Yes, there's a US 1 article (which btw was vfd'ed some months ago, escaped by the skin of its teeth, and hasn't developed much since then). Given the zillions of other places that have a "Route 1" -- pretty much every state of the US will have a SR 1, nearly all countries with numbered roads will have one -- a disambig page might make more sense than a redirect, if any of the others merit articles. (Hm -- somebody really should do an "M1" itinerary covering Russia, Belarus and Poland...) But until that's needed, just get rid of the thing, as it's clearly redundant as it stands. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:15, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. (And creating disambig pages for articles that might be created someday is a road I for one don't want to start down.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Page creation troll, Wikipedia does not concur that this place exists and/or merits mention. -- (WT-en) Colin
  • Delete. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. So that it doesn't get re-created later, I've converted it into a disambiguation page. ~ 125.24.4.216 05:35, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A disambiguation page that lists a few places there aren't even articles for is not useful. Not every junk article name needs to be redirected to protect against re-creation; only ones that might be recreated in good faith do. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:40, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Doesn't have a wikipedia entry, so it's either a spelling error (what, again?) or too small to reckon with. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:49, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • It looks like it's a mountain bike trail in Maine. Maybe worth a redirect? (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect to York County (Maine). ~ 125.24.4.216 06:20, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. May be a valid destination, but doesn't look like it. I think our friend may merely be picking cities with very tiny populations from , but who knows. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:51, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'd give it a redirect, but there's more than one place with a Mosquito Lake. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect or disambiguate. If it exists and there's only one, redirect it to the article that covers that territory; if there's more than one, disambiguate. ~ 125.24.4.216 02:24, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Disambiguation for non-existent articles is pointless. Doing so for non-existent articles for places that shouldn't be articles is worse. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Orphan page and I can't find any place with that name... content is outline. (WT-en) Maj 09:51, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
    • I'll speedy-delete it. This just looks like somebody was messing with page creation. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:59, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Currently a redirect to Italy, but... 125.24.4.216 13:23, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • I think it's fine/harmless as a redirect. We haven't been too pickey about keeping typo redirects around. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Mostly harmless. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete since there isn't any policy saying this should be kept, but I won't lose any sleep if it's kept as a redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, clearly. It's simply not an article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:15, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

so? keep —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 169.244.166.2 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

  • Keep. "the district of Zara in the Turkish province of Sivas" (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Ah, but the text of the article (such as it is) doesn't place it in Turkey, but rather in North Carolina, where there clearly is no Zara. Delete; if and when someone gets down to the nitty-gritty in Turkey (or Eritrea or wherever) to the point where a revived Zara article makes sense, we can deal with it, but I'm not holding my breath. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:19, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. If it doesn't warrant its own article, redirect to the article to which it belongs. ~ 125.24.4.216 14:52, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Our two weeks are up, and according to the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle, there's no consensus to keep it, so it's gone shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:10, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Private island; not a destination. (WT-en) Majnoona 12:05, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect, so that it won't be created again, as it appears to already have been deleted on a previous occasion - see Talk:Ram_Island dated 31 March 2006 - ~ 125.24.4.216 12:33, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect sounds good. I could maybe get behind this if it had some content. I was with a company that did work on a lighthouse here and the crew stayed on the island (though its almost too small) when there was no storm. But with no content there's no point. Certainly not much call from travelers and we don't want to be sending folks there. (WT-en) OldPine 14:54, 17 July 2006 (EDT) (WT-en) OldPine 12:38, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Well, the consensus seems to be to delete, so I am doing so, with misgivings -- I suspect this one may be "retrollified" (is that a word?) sooner or later. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:31, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. May be a valid destination, but more than likely not. User:(WT-en) Xltel has added enough content to convert vandalism to a real article, so I'm OK with keeping it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:53, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's a town and they have a state park, but doesn't appear to have any where to sleep... This ones getting closer to what we're looking for... (WT-en) Majnoona 21:26, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect to Grafton County (New Hampshire) or to New Hampshire. ~ 125.24.4.216 02:19, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Just voting on principal here. I've read the deletion policy twice and don't see how this fits. It's a valid town. Policy doesn't seem to require that one can sleep there. One could sleep in a nearby town and visit the place anyways. Yeah, it's a little pissant place of little interest, but is there policy that covers it? What if someone's RVing or hiking around and wants to know about this place that's coming up? (WT-en) OldPine 13:09, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • I'm switching to Keep on this one. You're right Old Pine, there's room for all towns! (WT-en) Majnoona 14:14, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • If this were Wikiatlas with a goal of documenting every settlement on the planet, or Wikiyellowpages with a goal of providing every community with a directory of restaurants in their local dialing area, I might find that scenario compelling, but it's not. Not every individual town is a travel destination. Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, strongly felt. Far smaller towns than this one (i.e., about half of North Dakota) have been written up and kept without demur. Would we even be considering deleting this if it hadn't been created originally by you-know-who? A page's origins don't count against it; even a blind hog can find an acorn, as the saying goes. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:34, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Yes, this article is listed here because of he-who-shall-not-be-named. The North Dakota articles were created by someone whose goal was to create a good travel guide about North Dakota, and that user at least went to some trouble to provide a minimum of information about each place. In this case, unless a transformation similar to what was done for White Mountain occurs I think we might as well delete this one as vandalism, and if someone with better intentions wants to re-create the article in the future there would be nothing stopping them from doing so. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:22, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • We're at our 14 days, and to the extent that there's consensus, I think the consensus is to keep it. Move to the obvious pages coming, unless someone makes an argument that tips the consensus again. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:25, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Speedy? Was deleted previously (WT-en) Majnoona 12:05, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Or, as it apparently does exist and it's been created/deleted before, redirect it (to Maine or similar) ~ 125.24.4.216 12:42, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It was created before by the same person who has now created it again; that doesn't mean it "exists", just that he'll create articles regardless of whether they refer to an identifiable place. We're not going redirect every nonsense article he creates to Maine just to stop him from re-creating them. The same arguments for deletion (not a destination, no identifiable place to redirect to) still apply. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:37, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Bogus. (WT-en) OldPine 15:02, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Created as a non-descript stub, since converted into a disambiguation page for two "small place"s for which we do not have articles. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:45, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. We may wind up recreating this in some distant future when every wide spot in the road has an article, but as the proverb says, sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:25, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This article consists of nothing but a long list of major airlines, along with the cities they serve. So far, the cities are only those starting with "Aa" thru "Ag" and it's already looking like Too Much Information™. With airline routes constantly changing (to say nothing of airlines themselves coming and going), this is going to be almost impossible to maintain, and not particularly practical to use even if we could. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:32, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:04, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think this info should be in the "Get in" sections of destinations. --(WT-en) Evan 09:50, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A non-goal. (WT-en) Majnoona 10:54, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
Update: He's up to "Al-", and despite attempts to contact him via Talk:Airlines, Talk:IP page, and the VFD notice on the page itself, he's still at it. Any chance of speedying this, to save the poor guy more wasted time?
  • Delete. Is a reason necessary? I'll check. (WT-en) OldPine 15:12, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
A reason is strongly encouraged. I agree with Todd on this. (WT-en) OldPine 17:52, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This was created with links to: a city in Scotland (Fort William), a no-longer-existent city in Ontario with no Wikivoyage article for it (since removed from the page), and a fort – an attraction – in Newfoundland with no article (also removed from the page). It is not needed. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:34, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I created it in error, agree it is not needed - if appropriate, speedy delete OK with me. ~ 125.24.4.216 17:42, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:04, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Creating two copies of the same article is a bit much. I recommend letting this sit for a day or two in the hopes that the author will see it and then speedy deleting. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:59, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Created by article creation troll. Wikipedia has no such place in Maine... although it does have WikiPedia:Yellow Head written by the same idiot. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:35, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:08, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This one doesn't even show up in PlacesNamed.com. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • comment do you have to call me a idiot? i'm just trying to help.
  • Keep. See below. If it's Yellow, let it mellow. There is in fact a village named Yellow Head in Maine, see the geonames.org search. --(WT-en) Evan 12:27, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • comment thank you
  • But is there a destination named Yellow Head? Just because there's a dot on the map for it doesn't mean that it's worthwhile writing an article about it. We don't want to list every hotel and restaurant in a city; why would we want to list every census-designated crossroads in a county? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:31, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Agreed, we don't want to list every village. What do you know about Yellow Head? I don't know anything about it. Argument from ignorance is not only a bad way to make decisions, but it's also obviously unfair. Let's go the extra yard to see what we can do to include contributions. --(WT-en) Evan 13:45, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
      • I disagree. The guy who creates these articles is obviously purposefully ignoring policy and exploiting the fact that it takes work to discuss and delete questionable article topics. That's not in doubt. While he doesn't particularly bug me in any way, and in some cases might even be helpful in promoting discussions such as this one, I don't think it's fair that we should have to assume good faith with each of his edits and then describe as "ignorant" someone's argument that since a quick search indicates a place is not a worthwhile destination that it's a candidate for deletion. While you may see that as arguing from ignorance, many of the rest of us see it as Fixing broken windows. I vote delete on this article, and it can always be recreated later if someone who knows the area and honestly thinks it's a worthwhile destination wants to do so. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:22, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
        • I did not mean that Colin is ignorant; I'm sorry if it came across that way. By all means, I'm well aware that Colin is about as smart as they come. "Argument from ignorance" is the technical term in rhetoric for the logical fallacy that states that if you don't know something is true, then it is necessarily false. My point was that we should hold fire until we know that Yellow Head isn't worth having an article about.
          On the subject of the contributor: his or her trollosity is totally immaterial to whether this is a good article, and we demean ourselves by wondering. Regardless of whether the person deserves it, we can maintain our dignity and good reputation by treating them with respect. The person in question will eventually drift off, but our angry words will stay here for years. Our anonymous friend's reputation on Wikivoyage does not matter; yours and mine do.
          As far as I can tell from my reading, Yellow Head is an uninhabited island in Machias Bay, also known as "Yellow Island" for its 75-foot yellow bluff. It doesn't show up in the US Census database or Gazetteer. I think it might make a good attraction for Bucks Harbor but is not notable enough for its own article. --(WT-en) Evan 15:09, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
          • My rule of thumb is that if a US city isn't in Wikipedia, it probably doesn't exist in a meaningful way. That's why I mentioned Wikipedia in the nom. The Census data is full of bogus placenames that aren't anything more than an unusual dense rural area. The trollosity is relevant: if this came from Joe Average IPAddress, I would just assume they knew the area well and felt it worth an article. In other words, I don't even check if the place exists for the average contributor, for the troll, I do. But that's the whole extent of the prejudice against the troll.-- (WT-en) Colin 15:27, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
          • I didn't think you were calling Colin ignorant, but you did accuse him of making an argument based on ignorance, which I don't think is the case. Colin made the decision to VFD an article based on the fact that searching WikiPedia and Google did not reveal any useful information, and also based on the fact that the creator likes to create questionable articles. In this case I think the "trollosity" is very relevant as it casts doubt on the validity of the contributor's additions - we have guidelines for a reason, and articles created by a user who not only ignores those guidelines but purposefully tries to find corner cases are much more likely to be VFD candidates. In any case, the point here is that we have a contributor who likes to ignore policy, and I don't think it's fair that each of his creations needs to be heavily scrutinized by looking at satellite data and such. A search on WikiPedia and Google should be sufficient to determine VFD or not, and in the future if someone who is not ignorant about the area comes along and wants to create a useful article, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:33, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
            • All right. All I can do is ask that you don't call contributors names like "troll" or "idiot". People in positions of authority disrespecting contributors, even if they are in the right, looks bad for the project. I'd appreciate if you didn't, but it's obviously up to you. --(WT-en) Evan 15:58, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
              • I've changed my wording. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:07, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
      • What do I know? I know that Google finds no references to ("Yellow Head" and "Maine") that refer to a city or an address. There are several references to a geographic feature, which is either an island or slight protruberance on a peninsula (they give conflicting info). I know from the coordinates in your link above and satellite images that there is no discernable development at that location, just a road nearby that might have a residence or several on it (which would account for it being listed as "populated", despite apparently having nothing to See, Do, Eat, or Drink). It's hard to prove that something (i.e. an actual travel destination) doesn't exist (as you seem to demand), but after a bit of looking, the lack of evidence that it does exist starts to get pretty persuasive. If someone wants me to believe an article is a valid travel destination. I have a simple, (I think) reasonable requirement: Show me. Put information in it. An article about a blink-and-you-miss-it crossroads with information about an inn that serves beer and burgers may be worth keeping, because that could be useful information. An emtpy stub with no such information and no detectible hope of ever having any... is not. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:07, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
        • Yes, as far as I can tell it's at best a crossroads. Using the satellite images is a good idea. --(WT-en) Evan 15:11, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uninhabited or barely-inhabited island. --(WT-en) Evan 15:11, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'll add to Bucks Harbor. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. So that it doesn't get re-created later, I've converted it into a disambiguation page. ~ 125.24.4.216 10:06, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Err, I'm not sure why it would make a good dismabiguation page as opposed to a redirect to the closest destination? I dont think we want to start doing disambigs for non-destinations. Anyone second the redirect over disambig? (WT-en) Majnoona 10:28, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Comment This lists Yellow Head as a city with an estimated population of 533, at a different lat/lon than the island. I'm not saying the place is a notable destination, but inability to find something with google is not evidence it doesn't exist. The town is in Lincoln County, near Pemaquid Point Lighthouse. 141.213.54.38 17:47, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
    • The inability to find something in Google is a huge blinking red flag that it is not signficant enough to be the subject of a Wikivoyage article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:28, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Laying aside the flamage, this article is an example of a phenomenon that User:(WT-en) OldPine (whom absolutely nobody should call a troll ...) has had to wrestle with: the tendency for practically any street corner or isolated tree in New England (United States of America) to have an "official" name that one can find somewhere, somehow. This is a problem for those who try to create articles with good intentions as well as an opportunity for trolls. I favor deleting this one, but let's consider changes to Project:What is an article?, if necessary, to improve our policy clarity on areas that are overendowed with place names (much of the UK is in a similar situation, surprise surprise, it's just that the proliferation of articles there hasn't started yet). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:13, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
  • So would someone with more patience than I have please wade through all this stuff and make a decision? We're overdue to delete, redirect, populate, whatever. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:17, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Already listed as something to "do" in Montreal and that's probably the best place for it at this time. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 16:50, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Appears to be a regional attraction. Content seems to already exist in Montreal, and should be copied into any other applicable regions. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:40, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Concur with the above. (WT-en) OldPine 17:49, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's an experiment Evan created. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 17:57, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, please. It's an experiment in doing a different kind of infobox. Delete. See below. --(WT-en) Evan 17:58, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Would it be possible to add a more informative explanation on Talk:Surf the Saint Laurence indicating what sort of experiment this is? I've wondered about this article before and didn't VFD it because you created it and I assumed you had a reason, but as it stands it does not meet the Project:What is an article? criteria and others are likely to wonder why it's here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:28, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • I gotta say I'm really unthrilled by the prospect of having content in PageA that it used in PageB, but that usage cannot be detected from PageA. Also, documentation is needed if this experiment is deemed a success. How long do you plan on experimenting with it? -- (WT-en) Colin 19:13, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Transcluded content should be visible through Special:Whatlinkshere, afaik. I plan on experimenting with it until it's done. There also seems to be a problem with the listing tags if there's one in a transcluded file; I need to do some debugging to determine if that's for any custom tag or just our listings. Anyways, I've moved the problem article to a sub-page of my user page, which is where experimental pages should go, after all. Since the main namespace article was not linked from anywhere but here, it's probably fine to delete the redirect. --(WT-en) Evan 19:28, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
      • Sorry to step on your toes Evan - I should have looked the history... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 20:16, 19 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Struck my vote (if I remember how). Starting to remember why I don't participate on this page. (WT-en) OldPine 18:03, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not an article. I've incoporated the short amount text into Hesse. I think this article, along with Drocken and Dachstein are all created because they have some sort of communications tower on them. There was a spate of these articles a while back... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 17:29, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/July_2006&oldid=4924257"