Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2007

Add links
From Wikivoyage

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

  • Delete - Goa's destinations are probably 90% beach, so essentially this article competes too much with Goa itself. It also doesn't make sense as a region article, since Goa is tiny and, again, 90% of the whole states destinations would be listed in this one region. I've divided the state into North Goa and South Goa, and if we need further division at some point we can subdivide those - There's still some work to be done though moving the info from this article into the appropriate places, if we vote to delete. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete for reasons given by Cacahuate. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete I've never been a big fan of this article. I think it should be merged with Goa or a region article. (WT-en) Maj 11:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Info merged into Goa and articles under Goa. Deleted, also deleted Beaches of Goa --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Not an article, as described in Project:What is an article? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 17:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


  • Delete - probably has a copyright, and not something necessary for WT. --(WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. An advert. Probably worth a speedy delete. -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:32, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

According to our Project:What is an article? policy, this shouldn't be an article as you cannot sleep there. According to Wikipedia there are cabins there for the weather team, but it is otherwise uninhabited and Svalbard#Cities states that it is uninhabited... Do we need to tighten up our guidelines or do we delete this? I'm not sure it's a great idea to delete this - if we do, we have to start deleting all wilderness articles... -- (WT-en) Tim 19:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep -- just read a bit further down to the exceptions section... we should keep this. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Delete -- I don't see how the exceptions section justifies this? It's uninhabited (except for the weather station), has no tourist facilities or sights of interest, and requires special permits and a custom Arctic expedition to get to. Neither do the other similar islands in the archipelago: in the unlikely event that they start to spill out of the main Svalbard article, they should be lumped into Outer Islands (Svalbard) or some such. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Delete. Not every splotch of land in the ocean is a destination. Jani's solution seems correct. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Redirect to Svalbard. We have (very brief) articles for some other rocks in the ocean with no public accommodations, but that's only because they're on the standard list of countries and territories (so people might go looking for articles about them), and they have no nearby landmasses (so they can't be easily included and redirected to anything). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Redirect to Svalbard. An article that will never exceed outline status probably isn't worth keeping around, but at the same time a redirect keeps someone from recreating it in the future. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, you guys talked me into it. I've done the redirect and will close the books on this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Not an article as Project:What is an article? describes. If true, info should be integrated into relevant country articles, however this should be verified first. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - it's definitely true, as most Muslim countries refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel. Some won't allow Israelis into their countries, some won't let non-Israelis into their country if they've got an Israeli stamp in their passport regardless of their nationality, and some both. But for sure this should be covered in the individual articles (and is in some, I've come across it) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I just double-checked and the 3 countries that the article lists all cover the subject on the individual article pages, so totally redundant – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • don't delete - it is true, and yes it is listed in the articles that are touched by it. but i feel that a .. list over all the countries that don't accept israeli stamps/visas/passports are still good for the traveler that might be plotting his trip, may just pass by a country and has an israeli stamp in his passport ....
  • I've no real objection to deleting it, but would lean toward keep since it does no harm I can see. Or should it be merged into Middle East since it affects many people travelling in that region? Whatever we do with this article, the topic does not just need to be covered in the countries that block visitors, but in the Israel article as well. I checked; it is covered there. (WT-en) Pashley 08:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Make sure the topic is covered in Israel (because everyone this applies to will - by definition - be going there) and explained in the applicable other countries, then delete. Creating a separate article makes the information harder to notice, which is not Best For The Traveler. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
  • So what's the consensus here then? It seems clear to me that it's a non-article, but is anyone strongly disagreeing with that still? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 21:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Non article, per Project:What_is_an_article? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 19:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. I disagree; Brú Na Bóinne is an Archaeological Park containing over 40 sites (not quite a National Park - but close enough) and anyway clearly qualifies under the exceptions clause of the 'What is an article' policy as a 'Large archaeological site'. There has been and continues to be confusion about access to the principal archaeological sites, hence the entry.
    • The site itself may qualify as the subject of an article, but the visitor centre for it does not. Information about how to access the site should be part of an article about the site, not the other way around. Our UNESCO World Heritage Sites page currently links to the article for Drogheda. (By the way, our policy is to use the English names of places for all destinations, so I believe "Bend of the Boyne" would be a more appropriate article title, if we have one specifically for this site.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
      • Setting aside the 'our English policy' remark, the original inscription on the UNESCO list was 'Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne'. The complex subsequently became an Archaeological Park (the Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park) and is known locally (i.e. the region), Nationally (i.e. by Government) and internationally (in most cases), simply as Brú Na Bóinne - and is almost always referred to as such. The vast majority of guide books, maps and related information published, refers to Brú Na Bóinne. Notwithstanding that fact, the article was written only yesterday and was due (and received) more attention today, and taking into account your first point, has been reshaped as the Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park - i.e. what it actually is and not what it was termed at the time the UNESCO application was made in 1992. Incidentally the main Wiki article for the UNESCO site is titled Brú Na Bóinne - not "Bend of the Boyne".
  • Keep, with or without changing the name depending on discussion Todd points to. (WT-en) Pashley 21:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Drogheda - the nearest place with facilities. Drogheda is mentioned many times in the article and is where the site should be featured, in line with our policy of not having articles for individual attractions except in exceptional circumstances. -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, in its redirected guise as Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park. There are similarities between this and a number of United States national monuments that have been discussed at length, for example Chimney Rock National Historic Site and Scotts Bluff National Monument. In each case we have an article that probably doesn't have to exist, being tied to a town or other destination, but since someone went to the trouble of creating the article, might as well keep it. See also the "Conventions" and "Conventions revisited" threads at Talk:United States National Parks for more of the reasoning that led to the retention of those other articles, also applicable to this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept and moved to Brú Na Bóinne Archaeological Park. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 18:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete -- (WT-en) Tim 19:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete - we can (and should) do that for obvious copyvios, though the few that are just missing license/source we should probably wait out and see if he comes around to add it – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Apologies if this was not done in the correct way. I was trying to respect copyright rules. That is why I used pictures from Wikipedia Commons for which there were notes with language similar to "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the yyyyy license". I interpreted this as an authorization to used the pictures in other sites. Apparently, my interpretation was wrong. Please advise me on whether Wikimedia pictures with such information can be copied or not into Wikivoyage. Thank you. I would also appreciate it if you could let me know where I can learn more about using pictures in Wikivoyage. User:(WT-en) Mario brazil 3 Apr 2007.
  • I would like to erase Image:230px-Br-101.jpg, but have not figured out how to delete pictures. User:(WT-en) Mario brazil 3 Apr 2007. 3:51am [EST]
    • By doing exactly what you did: call it to the community's attention and an admin will speedy-delete it, as I just did. You're doing the right thing here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Image:536px-Br-101.jpg was obtained from Wikipedia. I did not copy it from the website mentioned above. I obtained all 6 pictures from Wikimedia Commons. As I mentioned earlier, I was not aware this constituted a problem. If it is inappropriate to use pictures from Wikimedia at Wikivoyage, I agree they should be erased. If such pictures are authorized in some other way, let me know. Thanks. User:(WT-en) Mario brazil 3 Apr 2007. 3:51am [EST]
See Project:Copyleft#Frequently asked questions for information about what Wikimedia files can (and cannot) be incorporated into Wikivoyage. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

We need to get these resolved; they're many weeks overdue. As far as I can tell, Image:536px-Br-101.jpg is OK, being public domain according to Wikimedia Commons (I must admit that I suspect that declaration, but...). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Image:536px-Br-101.jpg kept; all others deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

A list of airlines (with some info about them), sorted by countries they serve. This kind of information belongs in the individual country articles, and creating a separate list of them just creates another page to maintain. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - I agree, this is redundant. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:02, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


  • Delete - too small, contains only one town. I don't think Kalmykia needs any subregions since it only has one city and a few towns that anyone might actually visit. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 23:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Kalmykia (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect. If it's a real place, but is covered in another article, a redirect is the best solution. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Still delete. This is a real place, but so obscure and small a place that no one would conceivably search for it. I believe that this district and the following are good examples of very minor politically bounded regions of no use to the traveler; if I understand the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Votes for deletion#deleting vs redirecting, I think they are just clutter. Moreover, I think it wise to discourage the creation of tiny Russian district pages (akin to US counties, but usually less populated) below the current hierarchical schematic — at least until there is much more content to spread about. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 00:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Err, saying a place is "of no use to the traveler" is saying a lot. There are different kinds of travellers including UN administrators and other NGO types, plus writers, academics, etc, who may have reasons to go somewhere that we can't even imagine. I think if there's a place to stay, then it's a destination. Otherwise it gets a subsection of the closest place to stay... (WT-en) Maj 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • The real question is, is there somebody now who is going to contribute this content. While Kalmykia is as big as half the states in the United States, and larger than most countries in Europe, it doesn't do any good to have stubs sitting around for years with nobody working on them. When somebody comes along who wants to turn this into an article, that's the time to make it an article. (WT-en) HLM 03:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I disagree: stubs are invitations to contribute that may get someone, who wouldn't start a new article, involved. It's not like we're going to run out of space ;-) and they are marked as outlines. (WT-en) Maj 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Actually, we had a resident of Kalmykia (I believe) doing some great work on the Kalmykia articles, but he/she unsurprisingly did not add anything to these district pages. I have yet to get to the region, but have studied it a great deal and would really like to see a great guide on wikivoyage for it. But I still think these districts should go—there is only one small town in each that anyone would conceivably visit, which can easily be covered by the main Kalmykia article and by individual articles for the towns of note. If we were writing an encyclopedia, I would certainly support Kalmyk district articles, but I think they are unhelpful for the traveller. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 09:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Kalmykia. No harm in it, although I doubt if many people will get to the main article via this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Kalmykia. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

    • Keep if the person that created it is ready to start contributing and write something about this place, then let's have an article. Kalmykia is bigger than the lower Peninsula of Michigan. Doesn't a federal republic of that size (it is not highly populated but it is very geographically diverse) have some districts within it? (WT-en) HLM 02:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect as in previous case. Redirecting keeps the article name around, in case someone does eventually add content, and is therefore preferable to deleting. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:44, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Kalmykia. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The only place mentioned is Lecropt Kirk. This could be covered in the "Get out" section of Bridge of Allan. If we start having articles for every church we will have loads of tiny articles. -- (WT-en) DanielC 12:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Bridge of Allan, after the content on Lecropt Kirk is merged in. One reason to keep things like this as redirects is to make it easier for people to find the root article, in case they actually do a search on the article title. Daniel's right, though: no way is this one ever going to be an article on its own. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Bridge of Allan. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:06, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Not a very useful image, and attempted license type doesn't apply here... – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. User doesn't understand copyright - taken from somewhere. -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


  • delete - too specific (WT-en) Jordanmills 15:55, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - Any info that will fit in here should rather go into the LA article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - This sort of information is better handled by primary sources. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • delete - too specific (WT-en) Jordanmills 15:55, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - Any info that will fit in here should rather go into the LA article --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - This sort of information is better handled by primary sources. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Unusable small and uploaded by User:(WT-en) Lursus, who has copyvio'd left and right. (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

District article for Stockport, although neither article meets requirements for splitting into districts as described in Project:Geographical_hierarchy#Districts_in_cities. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 17:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Stockport. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - Is just a shopping street in Sydney. No information on the page is solely relevant to the region, rather to all shopping in Sydney CBD. Does not meet Wikivoyage guidelines for an article.

(WT-en) Inas 01:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Sydney (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Redirect, but to where? Shouldn't this go into a district of some kind instead? BTW, the page wasn't flagged with a vfd banner (it is now), so let's give it another day or two before making decisions. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Sydney/City. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Apparently created in error with the summary: "Discover Hidden paradise on earth in the trip shape of Blossom tours & Autum tours" ~ 60.51.204.185 13:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Deleted. No reason for a vote on this one. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:28, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Redundant non-district, currently not linked to from anywhere except here ~ 210.187.13.150 11:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - not name of place. Unlikely anyone will search for it. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


  • Delete - not an article, I have redirected to Waterfalls for now --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Or should it redirect to the closest destination?
  • Redirect to closest destination ~ 60.51.204.185 00:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • It is mentioned in the province article for Lorestan which says it is near Dezful, for which we have no article. I'd say redirect to Lorestan for now, change later if needed. (WT-en) Pashley 22:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Redirected to Lorestan --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

An archeological site. ~ 219.94.80.130 04:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  • See UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Uxmal is one of 830 in the world. UNESCO World Heritage sites are unique historical and cultural sites. Mexico has 25, and Uxmal is one of them. (WT-en) HLM 04:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • This is a fairly substantial site, and not near any large cities. I'd be surprised if there isn't some lodging available nearby (I know there is at Chichen Itza), though it might require going as far as the nearest towns (which probably aren't destinations in their own right). I'm inclined to keep, rather than trying to find another place to cover it. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
  • According to the obvious Wikipedia article, "Two hotels and a small museum have been built within the remains of the ancient city." It's also a fair ways from Merida (70 km). That makes this one a no-brainer: Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. (WT-en) Pashley 08:35, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

An archaeological site. ~ 219.94.80.130 01:38, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  • It is administered as the Parque Nacional de Dzibilchaltún, as the article says. Don't national parks in any country get articles. I would think that any state park in the United States, if it preserves a significant historical or cultural site, should have an article in a travel guide like this one, that can afford to be inclusive and have every noteworthy travel destination. (WT-en) HLM 02:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    • The main test of whether a destination gets an article is can you sleep there?. I certainly don't know enough about the location to make such a call, but the article as it stands makes it seem as though you cannot.
...but not individual ruins in or near modern cities."
A problem is that "large" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Neither this article nor the WP one shed much light on just how "large" this place is, but according to this article (which btw lists it as "in" Merida despite a distance of 17 km), this park's area is about 540 hectares -- about 2 square miles for us metrically-impaired folks. Most, though not all, United States national monuments of comparable size are not treated as destinations, but are attractions within the article for a nearby city or region. So here; Redirect to Mérida (Yucatan). There is ample room for discussion on this; I've tried to "seed" a discussion at Talk:United_States_National_Parks#Lessons_for_Mexican_national_parks, in the absence of an overall "Mexican National Parks" article (which maybe should be written). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected as above. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

An archaeological site. ~ 219.94.80.130 01:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Archeological sites are one of the major attractions of the Yucatan, which had a 3000 year record of pre-Columbian civilizations. Uxmal, only a few kilometers from Labna, is a Unesco World Heritage Site. 219.94.80.130, would you get yourself a login so that we can have some idea of who you are, what your interests are, what you like to edit, and so forth. How can we take you seriously here if you don't log in and use a recognizable name. I have better things to do with my time here than respond to Votes for Deletion. (WT-en) HLM 02:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I have seen a large quantity of very well-informed and helpful edits from this IP and am glad to have this contributor on board. Moreover, wikivoyage welcomes and encourages participation from anyone who shares the goals of this site, regardless of whether they sign in or not. What is relevant is not who votes for deletion, but rather whether the article in question meets the criterion for Project:What is an article?. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 09:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • This is a rather small site, probably best covered in conjunction with other sites in the area... maybe Uxmal? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Uxmal as a "Get out" for that article. Both the relevant Wikipedia article and the primary source quoted there suggest that this thing is most appropriately considered an add-on to the larger Uxmal site. (BTW, I agree with Peterfitzgerald: opinions from anonymous editors count too.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Uxmal. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Duplicate images

[edit]

All of the above are duplicates. Probably worth a speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 12:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Three copies of the same image with no license info specified. All of these images are currently unused in any article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:37, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. A scanned map with no license info specified, which makes it a potential copyvio. This image is also unused in any article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Governate (region) in Syria. It was suggested that Syria doesn't need regions yet, and when it gets to the stage that it does, using official political regions would be less useful for the traveller than Northern Syria, Southern Syria etc, for that policy see Project:Geographical_hierarchy#Regions. For original comments on Syrian regions see Talk:Syria#Regions -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 09:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Syria. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Syria, that way a search will still lead a user to the correct content --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Redirected to Syria
  • Delete or Redirect. A small park, seems to be mainly done on a day trip. Project:What_is_an_article?#Exceptions states that we should have articles for large national parks, "...but not state or city parks that primarily serve as recreational sites for day visitors." - (WT-en) DanielC 14:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect AS stated above, the walk through the gorge can be completed in a day and there appears to be no accommodation or provision for camping.
  • Redirect to Agia Roumeli
  • Redirect. I've merged the basic info into Agia Roumeli. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:44, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Redirected to Agia Roumeli
What about a redirect to somewhere like Fundamentals of flying? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 17:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Easily recognized people. Also not sure what license it is (was taken from ). If it's a compatible license, it could be cropped.
  • Delete. I've done some snazzy wizardy with Photoshop to get around the recognizable-people problem, but I don't see how we could crop or otherwise fix this without losing the point of the photo, or being really obvious about it. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Someone remind me in October/November to go to Poznan and I'll take some photos, I just hope I don't get too drunk at the Wyborowa distillery. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:20, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

A poster, almost certainly a copyvio. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Created with the content "Transport by Taxi or Minibus for the huge Indian Fanilies www.mysterytours.net -also airport transfer and city tours Tel. 076 321 3800 int. 0041 76 321 3800" ~ 60.51.204.185 14:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Not sure if this should be redirected or deleted, so I've redirected it for now and I'm mentioning it here also. ~ 60.51.204.185 13:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep as a redirect. It would likely be a useful subregion article when the Ethiopia hierarchy gets developed. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Redirected --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete?Change to itinerary - Not sure what to make of this one. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep but recategorize - inter-town walks and cycling paths in the UK are a big travel topic in and of themselves—head to the travel section of an English bookstore and you'll see book after book on this topic. I think this sort of article should be encouraged as a regional itinerary and perhaps eventually listed under a travel topic. Living in London last summer, I was looking for precisely this sort of information, but did not find any good online, free sources. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 09:24, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
That was what I was thinking. This is useful information, but does not currently fit any type of article. Maybe a travel topic Walks and cycle paths in the UK or something similar is needed. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Keep and add itinerary template. This is a 10 mile walk between two towns - which more than makes a case for turning this into an itinerary under the rule "Itineraries should be an intersection of time or activity and destination" on Project:Itinerary article template... No matter how empty it is now, there's got to be a few things to do along the way/things to looks at/places to get food/get a pint so there will be info to fleece out the itinerary template! Have a look at Project:List of itineraries for a whole bunch of similar articles. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 11:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Works for me --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I am the Author and a local; I know the path is actually a tourist attraction and a local ammeniety, and the Uk is well kitted out with cyclepaths, some of them (such as the nearby Cuckoo Trail) are fully fledged attractions in thier own right. a nice, peaceful cycle in some lovely countryside may well appeal to families or people could enjoy the walks. I'm also all for a UK cyclepath page - shall i contact sustrans? the UK cyclepath making people?
thanks jack User:(WT-en) Profjack

  • Keep as itinerary. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm not convinced that a one-day hiking/cycling path constitutes an "Itinerary." However, it's definitely valuable information that should be retained somewhere. To me it looks like a perfect candidate for Project:Cooperating with WikiOutdoors. Jack, would it be possible for you to move this content over to a WikiOutdoors article? That article could then be referenced by the towns at either end -- meeting the goals of both projects. (Incidentally, absolutely the finest vacation I've ever had was spent cycling on paths like this in Scotland. It's great to know about more such options, I'm just not convinced they qualify as Itineraries.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I'd say it is obviously not a destination or travel topic. Looks to me like it could work as an itinerary. If not, we need to start discussion to either redefine itineraries or start a new category to put it and other such articles in. (WT-en) Pashley 01:10, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Kept as itinerary. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:28, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Could be an itinerary (with the caps fixed), but right now only has one url... could also be a redirect. (WT-en) Maj 11:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I like the idea of turning this into an itinerary, but it might have to be a bit more specific than horseback riding in Costa Rica... Unless there's a route that people could ride on... -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 12:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Try to work as itinerary. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. There are literally millions of topics that could be a valid travel itinerary, and in the absence of a "what is an article" criteria for travel topics it sets a bad precedent to keep empty articles that might one day become a valid topic - keeping this article opens us up to any number of empty "activity in place" articles, which isn't in the traveler's best interest. The current article contains only a single link - if someone wants to flesh out an itinerary about horseback riding in Costa Rica they can always recreate this article later, but the current "article" should be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

per Project:What is an article?#What DOES NOT get its own article? ~ 60.48.6.50 12:27, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Redirect to Goiania -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Although the web site this originally came from appears to be operated by the person who uploaded it, it seems likely that the image itself was derived from a copyrighted map, making it a copyvio Furthermore the style of the map (and Italian text) make it less-than-useful for our purposes; an original map would be better. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Has been copyvio for too long. — 202.63.119.165 06:34, 13 May 2007 (EDT) (Ravikiran)

  • Delete - has nothing to do with visiting the place, and makes the article look more like a Wikipedia article than a travel guide. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:26, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - has nothing to do with visiting the place, and makes the article look more like a Wikipedia article than a travel guide. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:26, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Outcome - Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 09:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)


Article about a cruise ship. Does not meet Project:What is an article?. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmmm. Just found this: Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#Cruise_ships -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, input on the more general question - and hopefully a consensus - is needed. This question has come up before and was never really resolved, and it's coming up again. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Ibid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. Cruises are a popular form of travel and this provides an unbiased opinion of one cruise ship 216.99.2.9 15:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
The question is whether that's enough to be the topic of an entire article. We don't have separate articles of that sort for hotels, for example. Please join the discussion linked to above. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Ditto. ~ 219.94.80.130 02:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome for the above three: Kept for now; discussion also archived at Talk:Cruise ships. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:36, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Not a travel topic. Stock spam text. (WT-en) Jordanmills 12:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Carbon offsets actually come up occasionally in discussions about travel, so how about redirecting to Ecotourism? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Agree - redirect to Ecotourism -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 13:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Guess it is a travel topic. Redirect seems reasonable to me then. Not sure how to do that with the VFD message on there, or if it's okay to take it down now that I've posted it here. I'm sure someone can work it out though. (WT-en) Jordanmills 13:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 23:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Ecotourism. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:46, 30 May 2007 (EDT)


Similar to a body of water, which we don't do articles on usually. Dive sites should be called up in their nearest destination. We do however have an article on the Great Barrier Reef. -- (WT-en) DanielC 06:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. It should be classified as an itinerary, because there are dozens of sites where one can visit and study the reef. There are also several museums in local places near the reef that offer materials, and these could be listed in the itinerary. It is actually a natural feature (not a body of water) comparable in some ways to the Grand Canyon, because it is 700 km long, however most people don't know about it because it is entirely underwater. Also, because it spans the Carribean coastline of four different countries, it doesn't have that much of an international identity (except to marine biologists). It is the largest coral reef system in the western hemisphere, the second largest in the world. You can't really say "dive site" because it is actually the destination for divers in four different countries (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras), spread over hundreds of kilometers. "Mesoamerican Barrier Reef" (in quotes) brings up more than 18K Google links. (WT-en) HLM 07:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • We have an article for the Great Barrier Reef because it's a region of Queensland, Australia consisting of several islands, and a part of our geographical hierarchy. It easily passes the "can you sleep there?" test. It's not there to describe the reef itself, which is beyond the scope of it. The fact that the Mesoamerican reef is so large is actually an argument against trying to put it into a single article. People are most likely to visit just a part of the reef, using one or two of the nearby countries as a base, and those dive sites can and should be covered in the articles for those countries. I'm not opposed in principle to having an itinerary-type article describing the route one might take from one end of the reef to the other (if people actually might do that), but it should be crafted as an itinerary, linking to the destination articles that cover the coastline along the way for info about accommodations, restaurants, etc. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
    • You can sleep there too! Honduras in particular has three large islands on the reef, which are famed among backpackers who want to dive for cheap. Honduras is the poorest country in Central American, and often the cheapest. This reef system has another common name, the Belize Barrier Reef. It is recognized as a Unesco World Heritage Site. The scientific name Mesoamerican Barrier Reef reflects an understanding that the name Belize Barrier Reef isn't really accurate. Maybe Mesoamerican Barrier Reef should redirect to Belize Barrier Reef. But I can't believe that wikivoyage deletes the names of Unesco World Heritage Sites while promoting names like Mayan Riviera, basically a travel agency invention. Furthermore, if you were describe the geographical features of Central America (coastal plain, cordillera, highland plateaus, etc.) then this would obviously be one of them. (WT-en) HLM 02:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
      • (I'd actually describe it as a feature of the Carribean Sea, it being in the ocean, after all. But them, this isn't a geography guide, so the question is fairly pointless.) The Great Barrier Reef article is an article about the above-water land in that area, not for the reef under the water. Similarly, we have articles for the Bay Islands because that is a region of another land-dwelling country. Wikivoyage has a distinct air-breathing bias, I'm afraid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, but move to Belize barrier reef since that's what Unesco calls it. We want the most common name; scientific precision is not particularly important. Scuba gear or snorkels allow this to be a travel destination for air-breathers. Link to it from Scuba diving. (WT-en) Pashley 22:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep Important for the traveler and several places to visit. We should keep as a regional article. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
So what is it a region of? If it's a region of the Caribbean, does that mean we pull any coastal islands of Honudras-thru-Mexico out of those countries and put them in here? If not, then what is in it, besides water? The only other body-of-water regions we have were created for the sake of islands that had no other region to go in; there are no such orphaned islands in this one. Or, if it's not a region article, what is it? An intinerary... from where to where... and on what transportation? These aren't rhetorical questions; the topic is neither fish nor fowl, and I really don't see how to develop this Wikipedia stub into something that fits Project:What is an article?, or what purpose it will serve. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Why does it have to be a region of anything? The purpose is to describe an area people (especially divers) might travel to. As I see it, if such description doesn't fit policy, it is the policy (or your interpretation) that is wrong.
If this region overlaps others, I see no problem. Other areas are on borders; is Lake Tahoe in California? Or borders are somewhat arbitrary; do you include Turkey and Egypt in Middle East? Or southern France in Mediterranean Europe? The geographical hierarchy is helpful both for navigation and for categorisation when you're writing, but it can never be perfect, it isn't scared, and it needn't be a major factor in choosing which areas rate a description. (WT-en) Pashley 09:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - I see no reason to delete this. It's a place tourists might like to visit so it deserves to be here. (WT-en) Xania 08:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • It appears that the consensus is to keep this, and we're long overdue to resolve it. (FWIW, keep is my own vote too.) Any new arguments for other actions? If not, I'll do the bookkeeping shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:42, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/May_2007&oldid=4919539"