Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2007

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Images by Profjafck

[edit]

Not in compliance with copyleft. One of several photos recently uploaded by Profjack that probably do not meet the requirements of our copyleft and should be deleted. I have left him a message on his talk page. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 15:21, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. The LewesCastle picture is definitely GDFL and in violation of our copyleft. No real response from Jack on his talk page and he is still uploading pictures without any licensing information, so I suppose we should delete them: --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Delete - Seems like all these images are used on answers.com at their relevant articles, example: , but they have also all been sourced from commons or wikipedia. Since we do not just want to look like a clone of answers.com and since the images uses a range of copyrights, I think deletion is best. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:09, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Unlinked in articles using them and Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:25, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I've removed the last usage of this template, and the same functionality is available in a nicer form from the Mediawiki #if: parser function. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:47, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Is a lake -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 12:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Gangtok. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:35, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Conflicts with Project:What is an article?. Already speedy-deleted once (along with "Bed and breakfast port elizabeth") on 19 June 2007, now created again by the same user. See User talk:(WT-en) At sta-plus. This time I've redirected it to Port Elizabeth#Sleep, and suggest it be deleted at the end of the standard 14 day VFD period. ~ 58.8.2.182 12:20, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

  • If it was speedy-deleted once before without protest (except by the author), no reason not to speedy delete it again. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:47, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Moved from Mineola, and is copyvio from Wikipedia -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 19:00, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:53, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:55, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Not an article. Could be edited down to a listing on the appropriate destination page. (WT-en) Maj 15:03, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Wow 58! That redirect article has quite the name! Frankly, I think an article like Shaker Run Golf Club--4361 Greentree Road Lebanon, OH 45036 800-721-0007 should have been speedy deleted. The only cause for having a redirect, as far as I can tell, is to 1. redirect searches and to 2. dissuade the recreation of deleted articles. In this case, I think neither cause would apply. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:52, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Since I'm the party guilty of the redirect, I'll add 3. use a redirect to try to educate a new contributor about where content should be placed and how it should be named. The original redirect can be deleted now if desired since the user in question hasn't reappeared in the past couple weeks. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 04:10, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:07, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Not an article. See Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 07:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Delete and list synopsis of info under Sleep section for town of Buena Vista. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
  • This is a clear Delete, but before doing so, might someone check out what town it should be listed under? Our Buena Vista "article" is a disambiguation page, and none of the Buena Vistas given there match this one's location. If this can't be resolved, it's gone shortly, so going once, going twice ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:12, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

It's an attraction, and content from this page has now been merged into Granada - make it a redirect? (WT-en) WTDuck2 09:09, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

  • I'd buy this as its own article (it does, after all, have places to stay), but if the content has already been merged, then make it a redirect. (WT-en) Maj 14:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Hmmm. Didn't know you can stay there, but you can only visit it for a maximum of 3 hours.... Redirect -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 05:59, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect. This is certainly something people might search for. (WT-en) Pashley 04:14, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
But what's the best English name? I'd say "the Alhambra", but am not sure what is correct or common. "La" is "the" in Spanish, "Al" is "the" in Arabic, so I find it odd that we seem to have both in an English title. (WT-en) Pashley 04:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Granada (Spain). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:16, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

per Project:What is an article? ~ 58.8.5.130 13:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome:Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:20, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete – copyvio from hotel's website. Possibly uploaded by hotel owner/worker, as they seem to have a particular interest in this hotel... either way, not really a useful image to the traveler. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:04, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:23, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete because a redirect would be pointless beyond belief. ~ 58.8.1.171 11:18, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:26, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. This is a copyvio from Andhra Pradesh tourism. (I can look up the web site to locate the source, but trust me on this, I saw this image in a promotional poster. ) — (WT-en) Ravikiran 01:23, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete based on Ravi's eye-witness testimony. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:31, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Now a blank page, original content was a copyvio. ~ 58.8.5.62 10:10, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. I doubt that North Shropshire villages have a special fame that deserves an independent article. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:36, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - I can't find anything about this place on the net, which means if it does exist it's very, very small. The page is empty... -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 09:28, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - extremely obscure subdivision of an obscure subdivision of Transylvania. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Redirect to Transylvania as per Project:Votes for deletion#deleting vs. redirecting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Transylvania. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Speedy Delete. Created here instead of in commonsshared. I have now created it in commonsshared, but it shouldn't be here as well. --(WT-en) The.Q 07:41, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Done (per Project:Deletion policy#Images moved to shared). I'm looking forward to the automated transfer of all the :en images to :shared! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedily deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:04, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

A bus company, not a destination/topic/itinerary/etc. The contributor who created these seems to be quite insistent about it, but they don't belong. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:39, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Delete after copying info to destination articles. (WT-en) Pashley 20:37, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

What info? What destination articles? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:10, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
The touting and company history are not worth copying of course, but some info may be. It mentions a route from Kota Kinabalu to Tawau. That might be useful info in Kota Kinabalu or Tawau articles. (WT-en) Pashley 00:25, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted - No usefull information copy into other articles --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


mispelt - should be Frederikshavn. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 16:25, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Usual in situations like this is to redirect to the properly spelled page; if the creator of the page misspelled it, someone doing a search might also. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I'd agree if it were Frederikshaven or Fredrikshavn; those look like plausible misspellings to me. But Frderikshavn looks like an error that is unlikely to be repeated, so I'd say delete rather than redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 03:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete.I'd agree if it were Frederikshaven or Fredrikshavn; those look like plausible misspellings to me. But Frderikshavn looks like an error that is unlikely to be repeated, so I'd say delete rather than redirect. The next possible iteration would be Friedrichafen,but that is much further south. So *Delete.(WT-en) Rachel52 18:10, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Mispelt pages are one of the principal and most straightforward reasons to redirect a page. See Project:How to redirect a page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Frederikshavn --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:06, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


  • Delete. Collage photo with too much going on and doesn't give the viewer a feel for Iran because there's too much going on. There's no model release for the image of the little girl in the photo, even on the page from where the photo was taken . Also, the photo is, or so I assume CC-by-SA 2.5, not CC-by-SA 1.0. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:31, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep.:: What did you expect? That this adorable Iranian girl (who is hardly recognizable btw) would sign a realease in english? The copyright and complete release for this picture has been given here: . For the rest, a Photo Composite is, by definition, a collage of individual pictures. On the contrary, there is nothing like it to convey a good first impression for a country. I personally find this picture beautiful. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 69.116.234.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I think the collage is rather nice, but the image falls afoul of Wikivoyage's image policy, which is a lot more strict than Wikipedia's. The picture of the girl is absolutely adorable, but also a clear-cut violation of the privacy policy part of our image policy. We don't really expect anyone to get little Persian girls to sign release forms—but unless they do we are not going to use their portraits to promote our guides. I also think that the licensing is very iffy for this picture. As I understand it, we are not really accepting friendly messages saying "sure, go ahead and use my picture," because they do not indicate that the photographer understands that they are permanently releasing their image rights to the commons under CC-by-SA. This is especially important because such a release would allow commercial organizations to use this image to promote their own business. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:47, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
On a very different note, Andrew, wasn't the "consensusish" determination of Project:Travellers' pub#A lot of images are not compatible with the copyleft! that it is perfectly fine to upload images that are CC-by-SA 2.5? I know I am still regularly doing just that. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:47, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
See I'm still not satisfied with that conversation and I'm disappointed there hasn't continued to be any discussion on the topic, especially by the whole community. Also, there's one instance where consensus means absolutely nothing and that's with regards to legally protecting ourselves, contributors, others' copyrights, and those who use our guides. Consensus cannot decide what is acceptable to any court. That's why I'm somewhat disappointed in that conversation, which I may try to revive again. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 02:29, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete – for reasons listed above and per the discussion on Talk:Iran, collages just aren't what we're looking for here... they tend to look too brochure-like. Peter, as I understand it you can use 2.5 images as long as the extra stipulations aren't stipulated (such as non-commercial). But I think "attribution" & "share-a-like" are ok – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Ah, so as long as it says by-SA I'm good? Good. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:28, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted, also deleted related Image:Persia.jpg for the same reasons --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:16, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Done redirect. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 01:11, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Travel activities#Wildlife watching --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - Useless article name, currently redirects to Calangute. Calangute Beach also a redirect to Calangute already exists --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. If "Queen of all beaches" is actually widely used (which I'm inclined to doubt, but it's 30+ years since I was in Goa), then add a redirect from that to Calangute. (WT-en) Pashley 10:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
    • Not needed. The phrase gets only 107 Google hits. Most are in Indian tourist literature; it seems to be a marketing phrase, not something widely used. (WT-en) Pashley 11:22, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - no-one will use that title in search. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:23, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Created primarily as a spam-holder, but I don't think this makes a sensible travel topic. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:13, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:27, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy Deleted after anonymous user created this as test page. User was informed of the Project:Graffiti wall --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just an article about an abandoned tunnel that has become home to glow worms. Sounds an interesting place to visit, but it does not meet the criteria for being an independent article. I suggest merging it with the Wollemi National Park article as that it where it is located. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

  • This might be a reasonable candidate for moving to our growing cooperation with WikiOutdoors, but it certainly doesn't belong here. I'll ping the author to see if he can make the move. Meanwhile, a call for help: the photo Image:Glow worm tunnel.jpg embedded in this article might move usefully to the Wollemi one. However, it's missing release language, and I'm not confident that it's not a copyvio. If it really was taken by the author, we can maybe overlook the release issue for right now, but can someone with the tools check to see whether it's out there somewhere else in copyvio-land? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:14, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:09, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. A very small official district of Dresden, which is not a "Huge City" (a city with districts) yet. -- (WT-en) DanielC 10:58, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
I am just editing the article. Compared to London districts it´s indeed very small, but it´s ideal for understanding Dresden as a city landscape. Last but not least it´s rather the center of the Dresden world hertiage area along the Elbe river.—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 212.80.234.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect. If it's important to understand this info when visiting Dresden, it should be in Dresden (which is not by any means a huge article at this point). If it turns out to be too much to fit there, then it could be separated. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:16, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
I increased the size of the Dresden article a little bit and linked to the central Blasewitz quarter because I believe this is not interesting for everybody, who just wants to read a little.
  • Merge and redirect for reasons stated above. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:19, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
done (merged the content (something more into Dresden) and embedded a link, from Dresden (city) to Blasewitz (quarter)). But I am brandnew to wikivoyage, so feel free to change thinks. (WT-en) Innosonic
  • Delete. It is really not worth menioning Blasewichs Dresden, on its own yet. - xxx
  • Merge and redirect -- (WT-en) Colin 20:13, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree with DanielC. (WT-en) Rachel52 17:52, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I started to go with the merge-and-redirect option, but frankly, couldn't find enough Wikivoyage-type content to merge. There's Wikipedia-style information in there, but this isn't Wikipedia. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:21, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree with DanielC.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:16, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

This is just a redirect and there's another at Bangkok to Saigon overland. (WT-en) Pashley 13:02, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete no need to keep duplications. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:55, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Yes there is no need to keep duplications, but neither is there any reason to delete them. There is also the possibility that useless redirects will boost hits for Wikivoyage's articles. Keep per current deletion policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Keep as redirect. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:21, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept as redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:43, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Just a redirect and we have another at Overland Europe to South Asia. (WT-en) Pashley 13:57, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. There's no harm in keeping it and there is at least the potential benefit that someone's finger may someday hit the hyphen key by mistake when searching. Unless I misunderstand, I don't think there is cause for us to delete redirects unless they are misleading people. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep as redirect. Adding a hyphen is a common error. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:55, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

This is interesting. I was going to just speedy delete both this and the one above; it seemed obvious to me (and still does) that they are errors and should go. However, I decided to list them here instead. I'm quite amazed that people want to keep them. (WT-en) Pashley 01:51, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

It's not a desire to keep them as much as a lack of desire to delete them. If you had speedy deleted these redirects, I'm sure no one would have objected—but I just don't think that getting rid of redirects is something we should occupy ourselves with. And the Project:Deletion policy states that "As a general rule redirection pages should not be deleted... unless the redirect is unlinked and redirects to a deleted article and changing the link does not make sense." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:48, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

A rock, impressive, but still just a rock --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:45, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course, a redirect will make sense here. Bryce Canyon National Park seems close enough (about 25 miles?). It can then be listed under the get out section there --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:14, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Article was original created as a placeholder for images which have since been VFD'd. Now it's just an empty itinerary template, which is of no use to travelers. If someone wants to create an actual itinerary in the future they could always do so, but for now I think we should get rid of this. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:16, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Absolutely beautiful road though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:06, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete – I agree that itineraries should start with some usable info in them rather than making templates for people to fill out later – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. 01:40, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Redirects to itself, can redirect it to Macedonia, but that seems like a wasted redirect --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Speedy redirect I went ahead and redirected this. If consensus is to delete, we can do that at the appropriate time. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 19:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I Just wanted to add that I checked Russian, Georgian, Armenian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese—they all redirect to their respective phrasebooks. So I would prefer that we redirect to Macedonian phrasebook, rather than Macedonia. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:58, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't object. That is better. done. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:03, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirecting to phrasebook is a good solution. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:55, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Kept as redirect --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:21, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Redirect to ja: language version --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:22, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Delete. It just says 'main page'. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:55, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Delete. I think it is our practice to speedy delete articles with article titles in foreign alphabets. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:57, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Merge?? 152.132.10.134 17:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Merge into Patna and make this a redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 20:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It is a famous tourist destination and there is accommodation nearby that serves people visiting the ruins. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
  • OK, if that's the case I'll go along with keep. (WT-en) Pashley 01:28, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
  • KEEP.. the information is not there. But it is a major tourist and pilgrimage destination —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 122.167.142.227 (talk • contribs)
  • Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Too fine-grained. 152.132.10.134

  • Might be worth keeping, though. It is only a few hundred people but it might be a destination for some travellers. (WT-en) Pashley 20:36, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's not a big place, but few in the middle of the Negev are. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:07, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It is like a small town: . (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Undecided. Can you sleep there? If not, is there somewhere nearby where you can? More info, please. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:44, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Good point - I thought I'd seen a link for accommodation on their web site, but I was mistaken. Generally, such places would be best listed it as an attraction on a regional page, but there is no address on the website, which implies they do not encourage visitors. So, perhaps delete is the best option. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:48, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect to Eilat#Go next, which is about 40km away. Under "projects" on their website it talks about being able to stay there as part of a volunteer program (2 months minimum) or to study Hebrew (5 months)... so it's of interest to long-term travelers, but I don't think qualifies for its own article. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
    • Merge and redirect looks best, given the can-you-sleep-there concerns. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Almost empty articles. Speedy delete please! --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 06:51, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. Actual places should be templated into actual destinations or redirected to the nearest appropriate place, not deleted. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep and template as they are all actual destinations: Semporna , Banaganapalli , Nandyal and Hailuoto . (WT-en) WindHorse 04:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree that all of these are actual destinations and if you would template/redirect/fill in information I would be happy to take back my vfd. But I do not know anything about these places so I'd rather delete them than keep them in their current form. --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 19:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. If you template it, they will fill it in. I've created some almost empty articles, Yinchuan for example, and had people add to them. (WT-en) Pashley 03:47, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I've templated all four places and added some basic info. (WT-en) WindHorse 04:36, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I am in Semporna right now and have just added a lot of missing information to almost all sections. This should address the concerns of Flip666. I propose to remove the vote for deletion message from the Semporna page immediately. (WT-en) Robert 09:45, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
  • all articles now contain at least information about the location, so I'll remove the vfds. Thanks everyone and special thanks to Robert for the information about Semporna! --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 12:00, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: vfd withdrawn. --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 09:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea what this is, but it's not an article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Already covered in in Japan#Sleep. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:48, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep - a lot of people go to Japan purely to study meditation and/or Zen and Japan has a small network of temples that cater specifically to overseas students (In fact there is a guide book purely dedicated to providing this info: 'Where to Meditate in Japan' published by Weatherhill). Having a dedicated page offering this information will save those seeking a place to stay and learn meditation from having to trawl through regional and prefectural articles - though maybe the title of the article could be changed to indicate that it is not just a page about home stay in a temple. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:19, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, but improve the name, maybe "Meditation in Japan" or "Studying Zen"? Tag it as a travel topic or an itinerary. It could be either and several different titles might make sense. Let whoever does the work decide on those details. (WT-en) Pashley 01:24, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, but rename to something else... I like this as a travel topic, as long as it sticks to pointers like it's doing now... This temple in this place. The details of the specific places should still be in the appropriate city/region articles – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:17, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

OK - how about 'Meditation in Japan' as the new title as Pashley suggests and run the article as travel topic. I'll be happy to set up the format along the lines suggested by Cacahuate once a decision has been made. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:48, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep, because it is useful. Disclaimer: I am the original author of the page. I wrote it after I planned a meditation stay in Japan and could not found much related data to it. In classical guidebooks such as the Lonely Planet, this topic is only marginally covered. I agree to the "pointer" approach (having also edited Eiheiji and Antaiji). A better name would be fine. Also, a broader scope (e.g. "Meditation Stays around the World") would be an option.
  • OK, I think we have consensus on this, although I suppose we have to wait out 7 more days until the VFD tag can be removed. I'll move the article to "Meditation in Japan", and it can then be linked to from appropriate articles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
  • delete, a definate delete candidate as pointed out by (WT-en) Jpatokal . It looks ridiculous if we keep repeating ourself. It was already covered in in Japan#Sleep. (WT-en) Rachel52 18:22, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
  • NB: In reference to Rachel152's comments. She is correct that temples are mentioned on the sleep section of the Japan article and so adding the information again would be unnecessary, but Jpatokal (based on the above consensus) has changed the title to 'Meditation in Japan'. This subject is not covered on the main article or on any other Japan related article. Therefore, I reiterate my vote to Keep as a 'pointer' travel topic. (WT-en) WindHorse 20:57, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
  • delete, a definate delete candidate. Why to re-iterate sometin that is already in wikivoyage??

Outcome: Kept, but renamed to Meditation in Japan (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

This entire travel topic looks to me like a copyright violation from , unless they are violating our copyright. The main host for that url is in Arabic, so I am having some trouble sorting it out. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:12, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

The page you cite has a label at the bottom saying Creative Commons license, so this could be a copy without being a copyright violation. It is a strange page, not in our usual format and with many external links, but the info might be useful to travellers. As the vfd notice says, we'd rather fix than delete articles. Any volunteers for fixing this one? (WT-en) Pashley 02:18, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah, that was a hard-to-see copyright notice! I'm inclined to speedy keep this, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to leave the plea for a MoS overhaul here for a day or two. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:02, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Keep for fixing. Good eye on the license! (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Not an article and has been carrying the copyvio banner for more than a year now --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 11:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep and rewrite. We have an article on hotels, and one on hostels. I think we gotta cover it. (I'll take a shot at it if you want... just let me know as I seldom get sucked onto this page. Shoulda blown out the copyvio stuff long ago. Shouldn't we have a place we keep track of these copyvios and their age? (WT-en) OldPine 20:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT) (Thanks for listening ;)
Hey if you are willing to tackle the article, I'll gladly withdraw my delete vote. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Keep if Old Pine is prepared to turn it into into a worthy travel topic. (WT-en) WindHorse 20:57, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Keep - Some may look at this as an "alternative", others may see it as "best choice available". In some rural areas, it may be "best choice available". I have stayed in a couple of them, with lady friends, in Holmes County. It was a good choice and it added much to the visit. If all do not want, or cannot participate in the activities, they have a pleasant place to sit it out. (WT-en) 2old 13:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
OK, I've kind of stalled out on this, was hoping someone would jump on board. Article is just fair at this point I'd say. I've never actually stayed in a B&B. I still think it's an article that should be here--hopefully to be improved. (WT-en) OldPine 13:28, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - I think its worthy of being around, and will get improved over time. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:11, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Not an article. Might be worth merging into Krakow, Zakopane and Wroclaw, tho. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:44, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - I already deleted it a few days ago and left a note on the anon contribs talk page, but it was recreated the next day. Hotels qualify for speedy deletion under our current policy, but seeing that it didn't work the first time, maybe let's leave it here for a while so that maybe the contributor sees it. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:04, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy delete (had already been deleted once). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted - No content and not an article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:53, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/July_2007&oldid=4919310"