Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2007

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Outcome on all of the above: Deleted per request. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:03, 4 March 2007 (EST)

The following uploads by a single contributor are nominated:

  • Delete. Two maps were taken from ski resort websites. Contributor didn't understand this was a problem, but agreed to try to get permission for copying. No permission has yet been indicated. In addition, I now realize that at least one of the non-map images Image:Bourg Saint Maurice white water.jpg was also taken from a different website , so I'm now nominating all image contributions from this user. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:53, 26 January 2007 (EST)
    • Alas, these probably need to get looked at one by one. Several, as you point out, are copyvios, but the Wembley Stadium Rebuilding shot has been released into public domain according to the guy on Wikipedia who created it. That one is definitely a keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:04, 15 February 2007 (EST)

I've removed the ski maps and kept Wembley Stadium Rebuilding, but we're overdue to deal with the others. Anybody? My present inclination is to keep the others, having failed to establish that they're copyvios; speak now or forever live with 'em. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:42, 19 February 2007 (EST)

OK, then it'll be so, at least for now. An occasional eye on these, to be alert for copyvio, wouldn't be a bad idea. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:55, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Outcome: some deleted, some kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:03, 4 March 2007 (EST)

"A shipping channel" - see Talk:Strait of Juan de Fuca#Article? ~ 61.91.191.2 - 1 February 2007

  • Delete. Not useful as a region (being an international border, separating the two coasts as Vancouver Island and Olympic Peninsula make better sense as regions for travel), so it's not an exception to the Project:Bodies of water rule. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:23, 1 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep -- narrowly, and I won't be too upset if the voting goes otherwise. National borders along straits are an unusual case, in that travelers along the straits have reasons to know what's available on the straits themselves, rather than deep in the regions beyond the shores. IMO our TTCF principle calls for this to be one of our rare exceptions to the BoW rule, and an equally rare article spanning two countries. However, if someone really feels strongly about deleting it, I won't kvetch. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:00, 19 February 2007 (EST)
  • Is there anything here that won't or can't be covered in one of the 2 other articles? Unless there is, I would say delete (WT-en) - Cacahuate 19:46, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:14, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Shows up on en:Special:DoubleRedirects - see User talk:(WT-en) Rmx#"Pt:" double-redirect ~ 61.91.191.8 22:29, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Needs to be deleted, or redirected, or else renamed Whitewater kayaking ~ 61.91.191.8 08:55, 2 February 2007 (EST)

  • Keep. This can make a nice travel topic, but the garbage needs to be removed, some real info needs to be added and it should be listed under Travel_topics#Travel_activities. I'll add some detail, lets see how the voting goes from there.
    • Friday afternoon, a week of work made me braindead. I missed the fact that Kayaking was spelled with a capital here. Have move the content to Whitewater kayaking and redirected Whitewater Kayaking to the new page.
  • Keep - is now a valid redirect, and the page it redirects to has valid content. ~ 61.91.191.11 06:37, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Delete - just spam related stuff.
  • Keep. - This can be made useful. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. Pretty standard kind of redirect, and Whitewater kayaking is certainly a valid travel topic, if one where our nascent cooperation with WikiOutdoors should be taken into consideration. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)
  • Either keep or preferably move the content to Travel activities and leave the old article as a redirect. We still don't have a standard for what is a valid travel article, so it's difficult to say whether something stays or goes. My preference would be that we move content into more general articles whenever possible, and only create new articles when the content becomes large and complex, similarly to how we handle museums or airports currently. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept with redirect to Whitewater kayaking. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

  • Keep - redirect to nearest town (or if all else fails to Free State) ~ 61.91.191.11 03:24, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect to Colesberg, and make the dam an entry under "Get out". -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:28, 7 March 2007 (EST)
  • Keep - So many changes in South Africa over the last couple of years that it is hard to keep up. The small supporting village (originally called Oranjekrag) next to the dam was actually proclaimed a town in October 1996 and is officially called Gariep Dam. I've updated Gariep Dam to reflect this and will add some detail on the page. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:29, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Seems to be a valid district, but content is empty and since it's not linked from the main namespace we might as well delete, per the guilty until proven philosophy. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:13, 8 March 2007 (EST)

  • Only thing I find on WP is about the Strait of Hormuz, which is a body of water. (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 21:34, 8 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Copyright Owner's Statement to Contributor uploading the file

You can make use of this pic[ture], just use it for your middle east brochures or publications - I wouldn't use it for places we [Royal Jordanian Airlines] don't fly to with the Tristars.

(Transcript of notes taken from verbal aggreement with photographer, January 2007)

Delete. There are restrictions added to this image (Middle Eastern articles only) that are clearly not compatible with Project:Copyleft. In addition, it's questionable how much value an image of a single carrier's airplane adds to a travel guide. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:05, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Object - Do not delete - I am discussing with User:(WT-en) Tsandell how to publicise the agreement with the copyright owner. Which was handwritten and confirmed in person - I think the image is beneficial in showing the traveller what to expect in the local airlines. -- (WT-en) MiddleEastern 17:43, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Comment - Information - I have now provided a transcript of the aggreement I made with the copyright holder on the images talk page --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 17:53, 3 February 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. We need permission to relicense it under the cc-bysa. "You may use it in your brochures" is insufficient. A CC-bySA image can be used for any purpose -- any being anything from a tourism brochure to a Fark photo contest where the image is manipulated to show the aircraft on fire or make fun of the photographer. Yeah, these details are annoying as hell, but we really have to be careful to nail the details down so that we can clearly say to everyone "these are the terms under which you may use anything from our site". -- (WT-en) Colin 19:25, 3 February 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. It's unfortunately fairly obvious that the person giving the permission doesn't understand CC by-sa. Also, I'm not really sure how useful this pic is, especially as according to Wikipedia RJ no longer fly the Tristrar. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:46, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Further Comment. They do on certain local routes, Wikipedia is somewhat misinformed on the current operations of the L-1011. I've actually flown on RJA's Tristars in Nov and Dec of 2006, whether they use them regularly still I'm not sure, but they certainly still have them in hangars at Aqaba. (WT-en) MiddleEastern 11:39, 4 February 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Doesn't conform to CC-SA, and not useful in a travel destination guide. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 00:30, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

  • Delete unless someone finds a place by this name. Created by an anonymous user with no content. Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia:Kymi, which is said to be "two ancient Greek cities". Creating such an article here would be a stretch of Project:What is an article? and a bit of a Project:Slippery slope since it's not clear what travel content would be added. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:13, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. I got carried away when I saw a red missing link to the Rietveld house in another article. Thanx, (WT-en) 3wisemen 27 Feb

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • What the hell is this? I'm a bit surprised it's been around for so long... delete. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 04:41, 16 February 2007 (EST)
  • Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • Source helpfully provided. Unfortunately is a copyvio — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:28, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • Source helpfully provided. Unfortunately is a copyvio — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • Source helpfully provided. Unfortunately is a copyvio — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This was probably part of the logo voting way back, but maybe we don't really want this one around.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • Source helpfully provided. Unfortunately is a copyvio — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

A new user that has created Gansbaai (I reverted that page as almost all the content was copyvio from a number of sources). I have all also found that at least two of the images are copyvio and suspect that the rest are as well:


Quite a pity as Gansbaai should

Comment : all pictures and text are by myself (martin groos, using "strandvelder" since my own first name was taken). Both www.africaguide.com and www.whalecoasthorsetrails.co.za have used my pictures with my opinion. You might very well find more of the above pictures on the web. All text is mine as well, but pieces of it might be found on www.danger-point-peninsula.co.za and other websites dealing with Gansbaai. All of this text has been written in my marketing capacity for the Gansbaai Tourism Board. There is no copyright on any of the text or any images. If any of this still constitues "copyvio" so be it and please delete. If not, please advise how I can state all of this is in the public domain. Thanks

Martin, thanks for replying here. Normally we mark pages as suspected copyright violations and give the owners time to respond, but in this case I was getting far to many copies of the text and photos already on the internet and decided blank the article and request deletion of the photos. I'm not totally sure how we continue from here. Gansbaai definitely deserves a page, but it is rather difficult to accept that we can use something such as image:Sugarbird.jpg when it is clear that is is a cropped and mirrored version of the image on another webpage where the content is marked as copyright farm 215. One possibility would be if the Gansbaai Tourism Board have a website where they can display these images and state that it is in the public domain. -- (WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:42, 18 February 2007 (EST)
If the person contributing the material produced it himself, and agrees to license it under the CC-By-SA or donate it to the public domain, then everything's fine. As long as we can believe the submitter about this, we can use it. (For example, the uploaded image of the sugarbird is bigger than the one on the farm215 site, so I see no reason to suspect it was stolen from there.) If the material has been independently used elsewhere, that's not a problem, even if the other site has a copyright notice on it, as long as the original write/photographer still owns the rights to the material or it's actually public domain. So Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:37, 18 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep (how does one withdraw a vfd?) - I think this one is OK. Due to a number of South Africans lately liberally violating copyright for articles they are interested in, I might have overreacted by reverting the page and putting the images up for vfd. I have checked and there is a M Groos at Gansbaai Tourism. At least one page does accolade that he contributed text. Martin, my apologies and thank you for an excellent article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 00:10, 19 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:11, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept, but Image:Horsetrails.jpg has been re-proposed for deletion, for other reasons. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:57, 10 March 2007 (EST)

  • Delete - do we need city flags on the pages? It's not a huge deal, and I don't feel that strongly about it, but how does it aid the traveler in any way? I can't see why any images other than helpful photos that give a sense of the place and maps should be on the pages. This makes more sense on Wikipedia, but not here... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 19:38, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Doesn't pass the "Can you sleep there test. (WT-en) Fastestdogever 19:00, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect to Chicago. This is sorta-kinda-maybe the usual way of handling universities. Because of the miscapitalization, I wouldn't object strenuously to deleting, however. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Chicago. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Flying Pig non-articles by 213.84.167.89

[edit]

I deleted The Flying Pig listing from Amsterdam when I saw them spamming us, please also revert that edit of mine when these are gone. The Flying Pig is probably a place travelers should know about, even if they feel they have to spam WT. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:11, 22 February 2007 (EST)

  • Tiny image of a place to stay. Images should illustrate the a destination rather than an individual place to sleep, eat, or drink unless the architecture of the building is noteworthy as a place to See in its own right. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:05, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - Non-article

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

  • We don't use templates for those. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:59, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Pretty pic, but unlikely to be model licensed, and of marginal relevance to the traveller anyway. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Kind of a shame to delete it, as it really is a nice pic (and Jani, I do think it's "relevant" to the volunteer, which is the section it illustrates), but there's no way it can survive the model-release issues. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No context at all, except that it is a "village in India". There are 50 million Indian villages and not all of them will deserve an article. Google search gives me nothing because Gobardhan is way more popular as a personal name than as a place. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 06:09, 16 February 2007 (EST)

  • Personally, I would prefer not to make a judgment as to what villages do or do not "deserve" an article. (You'd be amazed at the tininess of some towns in, say, North Dakota that have valid articles.) To me the question is whether there's a place with this name that passes the you-can-sleep-there test. Got any insights on this question before we delete? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Sorry for not responding earlier, but for the record, the reasoning is here: Before it passes the is-it-a-place-where-you-can-sleep test, it should first pass the is-it-a-place test. I could not find a record of such a place on the internet. For a remote Indian village, that is no proof of non-existence, but it certainly means that there is no prospect of any reasonable guide being written about it in the near future. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Image:PURIBEACH.jpg, Image:PURISTATION.jpg, Image:HOLIDAYPURI.jpg, Image:PURIBEST.JPG, Image:HolidayResort.jpg, Image:Mayfair.jpg, Image:Nilachal.jpg, Image:PuriBest.JPG, Image:Holiday resort.jpg, Image:Puri-station.jpg. No license specified, and at least some are clear copyvios, making them all suspect. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:49, 19 February 2007 (EST)

There are also model-release issues with several. Delete unless it's clear they're OK. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: all deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete - Bad format, completely in note-form, no travel guidance, just an info article on the village --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 11:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

  • May someone else can edit it rather,
  • Keep. Clear, as there's such a place. The usual procedure in cases like this is for someone to get the article into a standard template form so that others can populate it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Suppose you are right Bill (unsure if that's your real name, sorry!). Although I do think it needs a complete re-write, all the article has is local info and no real structure. I'm willing to rebuild it if no-one else is interested? --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 18:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Withdraw nomination - Someone has already re-formatted to our accepted article format. I've given the content a little TLC - take a look at the current version here, any thoughts? --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 18:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept, nomination withdrawn – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Image:Neverland.jpg

[edit]

I've been there, and it's nothing like this picture (a lot worse). -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 22:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: I speedy deleted this because we really really don't want to attract the attention of That Very Aggressive Company's Lawyers. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Whose that company? The place where everyone is happy? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a travel topic, only line is mauritius has a lot of stuff to learn about it. --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 17:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 22:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Outcome: Speedy deleted. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - looks like a copyvio from http://starswebworx.lc-stars.com/swiss_photo/pictures1.htm — site states: © All photos are copyright of Han van Loon. However I allow a form of creative commons licence for private use. Please note that images have been compressed from higher resolution images to reduce download times. If you would like to use these images for private (NOT commercial) purposes, please feel free to download them and email me to tell me what you found worth copying or what you liked looking at. — doesn't specify which Creative Commons license, but obviously not 1.0 since "non-commercial" is an option in the newer licenses, and isn't compatible with our Project:Copyleft (WT-en) - Cacahuate 20:17, 1 March 2007 (EST)
  • Delete - as per copyvio --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - not an article. The text can be copied and pasted into Portland. There's only 1 line, anyway. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 09:31, 4 March 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect - agree this will not be an article. I went ahead and redirected. The search engines like redirects for some reason and the redirect will prevent recreation later. I am alright with deleting, but a redirect is easy and takes little space. Of course there is the spelling issue. :) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:57, 4 March 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect, move to correct spelling, delete original to avoid double redirect - Tom has already done the redirect --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

There are no mentionable sleep, drink or buy option available at Cape Point or Cape of Good Hope. These places should be covered under Table Mountain National Park. I would suggest:

--(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)


This was one of several images included in a "general" VFD (see the March archive) on which the decision was to keep the articles, as the copyvio issue was resolved in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. Unfortunately, this image has another problem: lots of identifiable people with no model releases. I'm not sure whether protocol requires re-evaluating this one separately since the reason for deleting it has changed, but to be on the safe side, here it is for discussion. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

  • Delete - there is enough photos in the Gansbaai article already and there is no way to crop or edit this photo to remove identifiable people --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


From the "fold" apparent on the left side of the image, this looks like it was appropriated from some hard copy somewhere. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:03, 8 March 2007 (EST)

  • Delete - Seems to have been digitally manipulated as well. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - and the user who uploaded it is no longer active. --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 09:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - a non article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - can't find anything on it either - in the history it once said it was a city in Africa, but doesn't seem to come up with anything on google or WP – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete. I don't think we should start have foreign script pages on en:. Only a redirect. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't see the harm of having a foreign-script page as long as it redirects to something in English. WTP? And it may be useful to the reader who's more fluent with the language of that script than with English. Redirect as the original author intended. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I concur with (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill (WT-en) Kiwiexile 21:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Me too, keep --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 08:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Keep - As long as they are redirected I don't see any harm --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • keep with redirect

Outcome: Redirected to Kashgar. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Delete it's a sub-district, even though Krakow's districts are large we don't need break them down any further. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)
  • This and some of the others below appear to have some content that isn't present elsewhere in the Krakow pages. Before they're deleted (if they are), the content should be moved to other, appropriate articles, but I lack the knowledge of Krakow to do that. Can someone step up, please? I suggest we keep the non-empty sub-districts around until that's done. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Delete it's a sub-district, even though Krakow's districts are large we don't need break them down any further. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Delete it's a sub-district, even though Krakow's districts are large we don't need break them down any further. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Seems to be a valid district, but content is empty and since it's not linked from the main namespace we might as well delete, per the guilty until proven philosophy. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Delete it's a sub-district, even though Krakow's districts are large we don't need break them down any further. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Not linked to from Krakow or from any other article in the main namespace. See User talk:(WT-en) Sapphire#Krakow/... ~ 61.91.191.6 02:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

  • Delete it's a sub-district, even though Krakow's districts are large we don't need break them down any further. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:00, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Outcome for all of the above Krakow articles: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Listed on Special:BrokenRedirects ~ 61.91.191.2 14:44, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I speedy deleted this one - the target of the redirect has already been through the vfd process and been deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Reccommend for deletion Looks suspiciously like a commercial brochure pic.. it has no origin information (WT-en) MiddleEastern 15:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)
  • Delete per guilty until proven innocent theory. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:54, 11 March 2007 (EST)
  • Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
    • This one is on shared, I'll copy this vfd request there --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Verdict: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Not a valid travel article topic. Merge to Thailand article (WT-en) Hkpatv 04:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It is useful info and too long to merge well. (WT-en) Pashley 04:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think it's too much of a slippery slope. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 11:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - This can easily go into Thailand#Buy with just a little copyediting and reformatting. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep The article's beeen around for 3 years and is just the sort of stuff that my wife would love. I concur that it is too long to merge well into Thailand - especially as that article has the edit rubric:
WARNING: This page is 80 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. [Incidentally, shouldn't that automatic warning be on the lines of: some browsers may have problems displaying pages approaching or longer than 32kb. ?]
...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep It is undeniable that many cities attract travelers because of their specialized shopping, and because WT is on line, we are in the privileged position to offer this information - which for obvious reasons printed guides cannot. Basically, I think the info should be written into the main article initially, but split off when it becomes to large. I can envisage similar articles being produced for handicrafts in some cities. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep per the three "keep" votes above, plus the potential for the article to cover stuff such as Pantip Plaza (which it doesn't yet mention) in more detail than Bangkok/Sukhumvit. ~ 61.91.191.10 03:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Verdict: Kept, not a consensus to delete – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete. Copyvio (GNU FDL). See wikipedia:Travel Guide Agra, which is also an AfD. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 07:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the person who wrote it on WP copied it here after it was prodded there, saying that the content is better suited to Wikivoyage. So as such, we can assume that he is licensing it under cc-by-sa (or does not really care either way.) Of course, it is not according to our format, but it contains useful information. So it should be reformatted, moved to Agra and then redirected. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK. But I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining the difference between CC-SA 1.0 and GFDL. Moving this to Talk:Agra would probably be the best thing to do. We could then edit the stuff and merge it into appropriate sections of the article. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 09:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Incorporating the info into the Agra article and either deleting or redirecting this is OK; this is short enough to make that easy.
However, there is another alternative. This could be expanded into an itinerary, perhaps "One day in Agra" or some such. See One day in Tokyo or Two_days_in_Mumbai for examples of the sort of thing. A visit to Agra is a very common trip, enough to justify having an itinerary for it. Anyone want to do the work of expanding it into that? Perhaps the original writer? (WT-en) Pashley 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Verdict: Kept - I added the Merge template to the article, and we can continue to discuss what to do with it on the article's talk page – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete We have not added these kind of pages in the past, one reason is they are hard to maintain. Do we want to start now? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • No. Especially as nobody, local or otherwise, rides ordinary buses in Jakarta if they can avoid it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, but watch I don't think we want to risk offending whoever has obviously taken some care and time compiling these two lists. I think we can be a little more ffriendly and cherishing of effort (if sometimes misguided) than projects with a larger number of contributors such as the English Wikipedia (where there is a powerful deletionist tendency).

I would suggest:

  • 1) Combining the two articles into one
  • 2) Watching for (say) 3 months to see if they are updated or expanded before taking a decision.

Alternatively, is there an (official) website that could be linked to? (WT-en) Gaimhreadhan 10:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Absorb Delete changed opinion in view of Cacahuate's comments (WT-en) WindHorse 04:33, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
rather than just delete, move info on routes operating in main business/tourist areas to main article. Leave a note on author's page and article discussion suggesting this. I feel we should always try to modify and use info rather than delete if possible. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. We are not an encyclopedia. We should only mention the routes relevant to each site in their paragraph. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - At a glance it looks like most of the Jakarta articles have the bus lines, etc in them already, and these articles are just basic lists of info, which don't seem very user friendly to someone not already familiar with Jakarta anyway – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:17, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

For the moment, I have deleted JBR but kept BRJ, since they appeared redundant. BRJ will be deleted shortly too, unless someone argues strongly against it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted - – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept, was already redirected – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

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

  • Delete unless someone wants to actually write a help page on this topic (not recommending that, but it's the only way I could see this being worth keeping). -- (WT-en) Ryan (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Contains only an empty city template, has no itinerary-related content ~ 61.91.191.2 14:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Content merged into Nara#Get around per {{merge|Nara}} tag ~ 61.91.191.2 16:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Content merged into Nara#Get around per {{merge|Nara}} tag ~ 61.91.191.2 16:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Content merged into Nara#Get around per {{merge|Nara}} tag ~ 61.91.191.2 16:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Has been a broken redirect ever since it was created in July'06 ~ 61.91.191.2 17:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Has been a broken redirect ever since it was created in July'06 ~ 61.91.191.2 17:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep - Create an outline for the redirect target article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Has been a broken redirect ever since it was created in July'06 ~ 61.91.191.2 17:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep - Create an outline for the redirect target --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2007&oldid=4918984"