Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2010

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in March 2010. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/February 2010 or Project:Votes for deletion/April 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Per Project:Bodies of water.

  • Redirect after merging any relevant info with Bolsena or Montefiascone. (WT-en) Texugo 23:53, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Retain as is. Wikivoyage:Bodies of water states that Lake Tahoe region is an acceptable article. Apart from size and importance I don't see any difference in approach here.(WT-en) Shep 02:08, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
Lake Tahoe's article is allowed not because it is an article about a lake but because it is set up as a valid region article, fitting nicely into the hierarchy without overlap, etc., and listed in the parent article as a region. This is not the case here, nor with the two below. (WT-en) Texugo 04:22, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Retain all and improve Trasimeno. Neither Bracciano nor Bolsena are articles about lakes but about the areas around them. I don't see any overlap. I think what is relevant is how the area is perceived. In Reno they might say " let's go to Lake Tahoe". In Rome, people say "Let's go to Lahe Bracciano". For me the important thing is that, as individual cities, the towns around the two lakes don't really rate individual articles but as groups they come together nicely. (WT-en) Shep 06:43, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
Store. (WT-en) Mistertalk 08:18, 2 February 2010 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. No consensus for deletion. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Per Project:Bodies of water.

  • Merge and redirect (WT-en) Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Keep. Per the Bolsena and Bracciano discussions. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Per Project:Bodies of water.

  • Merge and redirect (WT-en) Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep for all three lakes discussed above. I have just done a quick check. Lake Louise, Loch Lomond and Lake Garda are all on Wikivoyage. I think they, and surely many others, establish a precedent.(WT-en) Shep 08:49, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep all three. None of these articles violate what WT:Bodies of water was designed to combat—they are not encyclopedia articles about lakes themselves, rather they are destination articles, with plenty of overnight options. Bracciano and Bolsena each group the villages ringing a lake into one valid "city" article, akin to how we use a city template for small, inhabited islands. There are thousands of such lake-resort/lakeside community destinations around the world, many of them much smaller than Tahoe, and the majority of them deserving a travel article (like Lake Placid). Trasimeno seems clearly a valid region article, and I'm not sure that it conflicts with the existing hierarchy in any way. And even if it did overlap other regions at the same level of the hierarchy, that is allowed, and is very often a sensible way of organizing travel content. The Chesapeake Bay and Navajo Nation articles clearly overlap all sorts of regions, but it would not be sensible to omit such well-known and coherent travel destinations from Wikivoyage out of a desire to keep the geographical hierarchy more simple—a certain amount of complexity is necessary and IMO not a problem. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep - but review the region.

I disagree with much of the reasoning above for keeping the three lake articles.

  1. If the the reason for the bodies of water guideline is that we don't want encyclopaedic articles about bodies of water, it would be extremely simple to just put that in the guideline. There are many people who contributed to the guideline, and trying to assess their reasoning rather than following the text is the wrong way to proceed. The text of the guideline is quite clear, and we should follow the guideline, or fix the guideline.
  2. I also don't agree that because there are other examples of a type of article, that we have established a precedent. There are lots of things that slip through the cracks for want of attention, and other articles which we just keep even though they are against policy (some just because they are good articles and useful to a traveller). I don't think that means that a precedent is stronger than a policy or guideline. We shouldn't let Wikivoyage documentation descend into unwritten policies, precedents, and conventions. If we think an article is good enough to establish a precedent, we should change the policy or guideline. To do anything else means that new users who want to follow the guidelines, don't have a clue where to look, and discussions here and elsewhere become excessively complex pointing to other examples, rather than building better guidelines.
  3. I don't think the fact that we allow regions that don't fit into the regional hierarchy, means that we should assume we keep regions that don't. Sure, we allow regions that don't fit into the hierarchy, but there should be a strong presumption against them rising to any more than just disamb articles. We should make new regions that don't form part of the hierarchy redirect/disamb articles, unless there really is additional information significant to the traveller that can't be sensibly placed anywhere other than the region. I see bare and poorly developed regions are a significant problem on WT, and we shouldn't add to it by encouraging other full regional articles. In this particular case, isn't clear whether the articles are going to end up as regional articles, containing towns, or city template based articles in themselves.

That said, this article seems to me to describe a land region named after the lake, rather than the lake itself, and Shep's arguments that it is a common name for the land region seem convincing to me. However, we should be careful that this article doesn't end up just a bare region. If this is a real grouping for a number of smaller towns, perhaps the towns themselves could be redirected to this region, if they all have something in common, and are close together? Or perhaps we could rethink the regional hierarchy in this area? If it is a clear region that the towns belong to, perhaps it should be part of the hierarchy? --(WT-en) inas 20:26, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Ian, your rebuttal is borderline incomprehensible to me. 1) If the text of the guideline is quite clear, then why were we having this discussion (where I made it clear that I disagree with your reading of the policy, for that matter). Anyway, I've updated the policy in a way that will hopefully make more sense. 2) The examples I cited are hardly articles that slipped through the cracks, they are examples that should make it obvious that we should have destination guides named after lakes, provided (as the policy has always said), they are about the land destination surrounding the lake, rather than the water itself. 3) I have no idea why there should be a strong presumption against region articles just because they are not a part of our hierarchy, which exists for navigational purposes. If a region is a valid travel region, we travelers a disservice to arbitrarily refuse to write travel content about it. Moreover, bare and poorly developed articles are far more likely for regions created out of navigational convenience (like Northern X) than something coherent like a specific resort lake. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I'm not familiar enough with the Italian lakes in question to be able to comment on the specifics, but I just wanted to chime in my support for Peter's interpretation of the policy. If a lake is a sensible destination/region -- and the pattern of having small communities dotted around a lake surrounded by mountains is quite common -- then there's no reason why the lake should not be a destination/region. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Agree much with Inas. For me the bodies of water policy reads that, if at all possible, we avoid having articles about them, instead preferring to redirect. Yes we know there are exceptions to the bodies of water guideline out there, but they all either have reasons to be exceptions, or they need to be re-examined. The ones already mentioned seem to have valid reasons:
  • Lake Placid is the name of the town, so is actually not an exception at all.
  • Loch Lomond is a hierarchically valid subregion article of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park
  • Lake Louise is very remote with no logical nearest town to direct to, yet is a popular destination with its own places to sleep.
  • Lake Garda is a very large lake which borders three provinces, has attractions around it, but no single community big enough to warrant an article, so no logical place to redirect or disambiguate. This is the treat-all-the-villages-as-one-city example that Peter was looking for.
Since even our geographical hierachy states that exceptions need to be made on a case by case basis let's look at the three at hand:
  • Lake Bolsena - Has two town articles (Montefiascone and Latera which is no further away but not mentioned in the current article). Has one town, Bolsena which could probably do with its own article, having a castle, a cathedral with an interesting story, a theater, and several dozen restaurants and places to sleep. Has one small village worth mentioning in the Get out section of nearby Montefiascone because it has a castle and provides access to a small island. I don't see any information that wouldn't fit nicely into another article, given a disambig page, so I don't see any reason to make this an exception from current body of water policy on the basis of anything other than possibly naming a subregion after this lake. On that point, the question as to whether this article should stand as a valid region article can be answered by asking "Can (and should) the province of Viterbo be subdivided into regions, and would this be a logical component of that subdivision without causing overlap?"
  • Lake Bracciano - Currently has no articles of cities around the lake, but Bracciano is a city of 15,500, well deserving of an article, and we can redirect there. We can put info about enjoying the lake in the new city article, with the much smaller Anguillara Sabazia and Trevignano Romano covered briefly in the Get out section. Again, I see no reason we can't follow the disambig and redirect guideline. If, as above, we decide that subdividing Viterbo is necessary, this could possibly make a logical region with no overlap, though I'm not sure it would contain anything at all besides the aforementioned city article.
  • Lake Trasimeno could very well be a valid region article at some point. However, right now Umbria is not subdivided into regions, so, as in cases where someone creates a lone district article for an otherwise undivided city, I think it needs to be nothing but a disambig page, at least until such time as someone justifies and proposes subdistricting. The current article contains nothing but links to cities anyway, and is essentially already the disambig page I would have it be, except that it has a region template.
To respond to Peter's position about overlap, I agree that a little overlap doesn't hurt sometimes, but our guidelines still encourage us to avoid it when possible. So far the few exceptions we have made have been on a very case-by-case basis, sometimes hotly contested, and only about very large and famous regions which cross multiple macro-regions or countries. Many of the exceptions we have made have resulted in what are basically glorified disambig pages with little extra information. I really think what you are proposing is a slippery slope. If we start making exceptions for any little ol' lake with a couple of villages on it, we undermine both the bodies of water policy and the geographical hierarchy guidelines, and we'll end up with hundreds of new lake articles that overlap, confuse breadcrumb navigation, contain little information that couldn't be included elsewhere, and invite further rule-stretching to include rivers, etc. I get the feeling that you essentially disagree with the bodies of water policy, which is your right and we can of course discuss in the appropriate place and possibly make some changes. But as Inas said, the current policy is pretty clear on avoiding such articles if at all possible. In the above cases, I think it is very easy to avoid. (WT-en) Texugo 00:29, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Lake Bolsena: I'm least sure of this one, but WP lists seven comuni on the shores of the lake, so it should be a fine region article. Lake Bracciano is small, as are the communities around it, which is why Shep recommended they be covered within one article. I haven't been there, so I'm happy to trust his judgment—and I certainly don't see a compelling reason not to (other than some arbitrary discrimination against articles with the word "lake" in the title?). Lake Trasimeno is a valid region article already, and is not suggested as a region in a subdivision of Umbria, nor should it be, as it would only be listed as an other destination on whatever parent region article. It's clearly a travel destination, and I'm baffled as to how this undermines the geographical hierarchy, confuses breadcrumb information, or otherwise creates any problems of overlap. It's a coherent travel destination, it can sustain a good travel article, and travelers heading there would be well served by an article for the lake region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Wow! If I had known that writing for Wikivoyage was going to lead to so much debate I'd have read a good book instead. Anyway, I am happy to go along with the consensus, if there is one.(WT-en) Shep 13:43, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

This is a debate we had to have - because the relationship between wikivoyage and bodies of water has always been odd, and it is good to see the points of view come out. Please don't feel you have to wait on the sideline for a consensus, a new opinion I'm sure would be valued by all. Hopefully we can get a better guideline as a result. --(WT-en) inas 19:09, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I wrote the two lake articles thinking that it was a logical way to present the locations in the area. I'm trying to increase coverage of Lazio and as I noted above most places around the lakes do not really merit an article on their own. But I do think Wikivoyage should avoid articles such as the present one on Lake Trasimeno, which is not much help to anyone, with no information and listings of cities that have no articles!(WT-en) Shep 01:06, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
This discussion is currently on hold because it sparked a larger discussion here. Please chime in there. (WT-en) Texugo 01:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Result: Keep. No consensus for deletion. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Village under 4500 people. Practically everything mentioned here is in Lancaster, 30 minutes away. It is explicitly stated that there is no place to stay, no place to eat, nothing to see, nothing to do, and there is only one very vague Buy suggestion that is basically universal to the region.

  • Merge then delete If there is anything that is not already on the Lancaster page, then I'd suggest merging first. If not, just delete it. It has a nice name, though. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:50, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge & redirect. The name is nice; someone might search for it. (WT-en) Pashley 13:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect. Agree with Pashley (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 15:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

The only reason I made this page was because it was a project for Introduction to Tourism and Hospitality Class. We had to chose a place and make a site and I figured no one has ever really heard of Peach Bottom so I figured I would just pick that.—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Sarah.Osborne (talk • contribs)

It's not your fault; your teacher should have made sure your assignment was in line with our policies before letting you guys loose here. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:33, 13 November 2009 (EST)
I think we might need a Welcome, students page. (WT-en) Pashley 00:38, 22 November 2009 (EST)
I think that is a very good idea. Clearly Wikivoyage is finding itself on more and more student assignment lists. Perhaps we need a Welcome teachers page as well? If nothing else, we should try to make sure that teachers do not irresponsibly set their students loose here without understanding the site themselves. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:18, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Not sure any explanation is required. Speedy I think. Apart from anything else it has been set up as a disambiguation page. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

I do not think it can be speedied. There is at least one valid travel topic that is very close to this. Perhaps "Foreign students in Europe" or "Studying abroad"? I'm not sure of the exact right title or scope. but studying — especially students from "developing" countries going to "developed" countries — is a huge reason for travel. Better to re-name and generalise the article than to scrap it. Some of the advice here, like get a driver's license at home because converting it is cheaper than getting one in the host country, can be useful and is not obvious. (WT-en) Pashley 22:14, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
I'd say it should be changed to Studying in Finland. "Foreign students in Europe" is likely to be too broad a topic, and the current title is too narrow. I certainly don't think there are enough differences to warrant having a separate topic each for Turkish students coming to Finland, Jordanian students coming to Finland, Iranian students coming to..., and every other country... (WT-en) Texugo 22:39, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, but then do we get Studying in Finland, Studying in Germany, Studying in France, Studying in the UK, ... ? (WT-en) Pashley 23:04, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Studying in Finland makes sense. Anything more specific than that then a can of worms is well and truly opened with thousands of permutations. Also, I must say that it had not occurred to me that students formally moving overseas to study would look to Wikivoyage for logistical advice; hence my suggestion for speedy. There are surely far more appropriate places? Do we really think that students will use Wikivoyage as a source of such advice?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:06, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Business travel and studying overseas (all those Learn sections) are well-established reasons to use Wikivoyage. I agree that the original article is kinda ridiculous, but wouldn't oppose a Studying in Finland article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:52, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
We might, Pashley, if there is information to impart that would not fit comfortably into a Learn section. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:01, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
Rewrite is needed to fit the Studying in Finland proposal. The current article is not really helpful and more a list of commonplaces. I suggest we redirect first and then see how the article develops. (WT-en) jan 09:15, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
I'd prefer a single Studying abroad article with the suggestion of looking at the "Learn" section of destination articles. We don't have "Working in Finland", Working in Thailand", etc., just Working abroad and the Work sections of destinations. I think the same applies here. (WT-en) Pashley 01:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
How about starting things off with a Studying abroad article, and letting it expand from there? The original looks like it may have been written by a Pakistani student now in Finland, who found these things out the hard way and wants to help. This is good in principle, unless Wikivoyage is going to limit the scope of its content to exclude this sort of information. If there is not an issue of space, why not provide this service? Those hints look moderately useful to someone with no travelling experience planning to go to a very different climate and culture. The format will probably have to differ from the norm to make sense, but as a possibility, consider a main article Studying abroad, with sub-articles for region specific hints like Studying abroad/Pakistani in Finland if/when there is enough content to justify the split. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
I like the idea of starting off with a Study Abroad article and splitting as it expands. I think that's much more reasonable than beginning with a random Studying abroad in Finland article that will be likely to fall into obscurity, since there really isn't any place right now to link to it. It would just be a floater. Having an established Study Abroad page would provide a base for creating more specific articles relating to study abroad. If the information here is decent information, perhaps it could be moved to the the Talk Page of the study abroad article once it is created. That way we wouldn't lose content. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Only problem is, I'm not sure there's all that much to say about studying abroad in general? The Pakistani guy studying in Finland is going to be facing a very different set of hurdles from the Finnish guy studying in Japan... (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Looking at the New York regional structure, a county article is not really appropriate. There is already a reasonably developed Saratoga Springs article so if anything, maybe a redirect there? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 13:08, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Keep. The regions of New York are not, themselves, well-divided into subregions. Counties seem to be the default option until someone comes up with a better organization. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:59, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Hudson Valley. It's a problematic county, as it is split across two parent regions. But more importantly it's not yet necessary, nothing links there, nor does it have any content. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:11, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
    • As you say, it's split across two parent regions, so why redirect to one? (WT-en) LtPowers 16:21, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
There's almost nothing northwest of the park border (to this we owe the beautiful views from Saratoga Springs!). I'm pretty sure miniscule Corinth is all there is—everything else is on the Hudson Valley side. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep and disambiguate or redirect - I am not sure why there is such an aversion to creating US counties but to me it would seem reasonable to have county pages, simply because Wikipedia has them and there is a risk that someone will link to Wikivoyage and expect to find a county organised the same way. It could be a disambiguation page at this stage that points to all the places you want to redirect it to. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:22, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

No useful info, wrong title format, wrong capitalisation. We might eventually want an article for Kattoor, which WP lists [1]. (WT-en) Pashley 00:40, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • I think the solution is obvious. Move to Kattoor, add an outline template, wikilink to the Wikipedia article and keep it. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:28, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Move to Kattoor. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Seems like a load of bull to me --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:38, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • a point or two for humour (vibrant night life in Tollesbury is an amusing concept). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:48, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Blank and Outline. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:33, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep and add a destination template. It is probably worth a mention as a destination in Essex, so that it is no longer an orphan page. Then again the vibrant nightlife reminds me of Peter Sellers Belham with its beautigul flashing lights - green - orange - red and back to green again! - (WT-en) Huttite 06:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Keep. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:19, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Body of water, not a destination. One does not go to "False Bay" as such, one goes to the destinations on its coast specified by name. Most are part of Cape Town, but some are not, making a redirect inappropriate.

Scratch that, should have looked at it first. It's a valid region article, and is about the cities in the bay area, not the water itself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
This article should be kept and updated. False Bay is the marina destination which makes all the surrounding cities of the bay relevant. False Bay is one of the better destinations in the West Cape for water activities and viewing of marine animals. --(WT-en) Daniel Talk 02:29, 10 January2010 (EDT)

Not a useful name. So many places have an Atlantic seaboard that disambiguation is not an option

  • Merge and delete (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:22, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep — ditto what I said above. If there is a naming conflict with other articles, then it can be disambiguated. Or if you have a better name in mind, we can use that. But otherwise this seems a perfectly valid region article and subdivision of Cape Peninsula. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:31, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
So, is this one just going to have links to countries in South America, North America, Africa, and Europe that touch the Atlantic Ocean? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:37, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
There's no need to disambiguate yet, as there is only one article. And no, that would be a pointless disambig—it would only need to disambiguate region articles that actually bear that name. Mid-Atlantic is a similar case. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)


Now that has been launched, it's time to delete the articles in Category:위키트래벌. Deletions can be done speedily after it's confirmed that they've been transwikied (= check if English original has a link to ko and whether the article is there). (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:08, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Isn't this a bit premature? It might be better to explain what to do about these article as part of the expedition, rather than simply VfD the the whole category here. Perhaps VfD later once we are certain the articles have all been created in . - (WT-en) Huttite 06:50, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Getting rid of this has been discussed before; see its discussion page and User talk:DenisYurkin#Some_questions. I thought it time to broaden the discussion.

It seems to me the basic premise that there's some sort of "international language" (words or phrases likely to be understood more-or-less anywhere) to be documented is just wrong. Given that, I do not think the article is salvageable, or at least not under this title. On the other hand, could we move it to Tips for coping with language problems or some such? Certainly this is a problem many travelers face; that's a valid travel topic and parts of this article might be a good start. (WT-en) Pashley 08:36, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

What sections/aspects could an article like Tips for coping with language problems include? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:29, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
I mean that if there's any idea of what this article better become a part of, why vfding it at all--why not start with an outline of such a more-general article? I absolutely admit that it's impossible to have a complete phrasebook (complete in the sense we have other phrasebooks here)--and this article was never considered for that goal--. Yes, it's a helper in communicating when you can't find a common language--so if it's only a matter of renaming, let's just do it. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
I like this idea better. An international phrasebook is too limiting, I think, because there is no such thing as an international language (although people like to say that English is the international language). Tips for getting through language issues seems easier to add to, as well as to forgive things that apply to many places but not everywhere. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:16, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete though Jani's idea of a sign language phrasebooks seems good if someone can come up with an idea on how to make it work, I learned booking whole railway tickets in China (before mass tourism arrived) using nothing but sign language and a LP guide (city names in Chinese) - See the talk page —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Sertmann (talk • contribs) .


  • Keep. I think it's useful to have a list of English words that are likely to be widely understood. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:33, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Based on discussion at Project:Travellers'_pub#Image_for_Travel_topic:World_languages, I've started a Talk article using some, but by no means all, text from this one. (WT-en) Pashley 21:23, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Now that we have Talk, I think this should be a Redirect. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:49, 8 February 2010 (EST)

This page was tagged as a VfD candidate about a year ago, but there is no record of the user adding it here to discuss. So I will add it here to discuss. However, I would prefer to merge with and redirect to Kannur, since it appears as an attraction there, but wondered if there was any better alternative that anyone could think of. The content is probably of little value, possibly a copyvio... - (WT-en) Huttite 08:38, 18 January 2010 (EST)

  • Seems like a copyvio, so just redirect and lose all information. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:34, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Agreed, copyvio. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:25, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Outcome: redirected to Kannur. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:25, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2010&oldid=4924685"