Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2007

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

This is actually a commercial water theme park, one of several in the area, and you can't stay there-- no accommodations. The park is only open until 5:30 or 6 PM depending on the time of year, and the article originated most likely from a park employee, with many copyright violations including copyrighted photos from the company's site and very sales-y language. A similar article was created around the same time on es: and has long since been deleted.

  • Delete - The theme park already has mentions in 4 other nearby destinations' articles.(WT-en) Texugo 04:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete' - Agree. Should have coverage from elsewhere. (WT-en) OldPine 09:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep I have been there, it is like a Mexican version of Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve near Honolulu (been there too). It is a ecological theme park. It has been a few years since I was there, but I think you can sleep there, or at least camp very near by. I would suggest to anyone in that area, especially if you have children, visit. It is on the road to Tulum, from Cancun and heavily traveled by tourists. (WT-en) 2old 10:32, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Their website suggests no on-site accommodations and the park is within taxi distance from both Cancun and Tulum, which to me makes it a non-article. The only commercial theme park articles we have so far are Disney resorts, which are huge theme park complexes with accommodations. I don't believe this park measures up. The activities on offer there can easily be summed up in a brief paragraph on the Cancun page. The rest of it is just commercial nonsense, i.e. "Xel-ha is a theme park created by Mayan gods, bla bla bla". (WT-en) Texugo 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
I thought about this last night. I agree that it is a non-article. My first thought was don't delete this. It should be merged with Mayan Riviera or Riviera Maya which both exist on Wikivoyage and are the same place. And, those should be merged. So, my vote is changed to Merge and redirect if approptiate. By the way, the area was created by the Mayan Gods, it is where they vacationed. If you visit, you will understand why. (WT-en) 2old 09:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
That sounds right to me. Merge and redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 20:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I have moved all that I think is appropriate to Mayan Riviera, Riviera Maya can be deleted and redirected, if you like. (WT-en) 2old 12:18, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Xel-Ha and Riviera Maya Redirected to Mayan Riviera --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:34, 11 November 2007 (EST)


Pasted text from Wikipedia.

  • Kept after blanking... if it's a valid place, just remove the copyvio text and leave it as an outline, no need to delete  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 13:05, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - the Wikipedia article says it's a town with a population of 9000+ ~ 203.189.134.3 07:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept after WP content was replaced by blank template --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:38, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Not sure if this can be speedy-deleted or not. It clearly shows people and so is in violation of the image policy I believe. Is there a way to use this picture--how does one go about submitting model releases, or do we even get into that? -- (WT-en) OldPine 10:02, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Speedy Delete. This thing about people in photo's is making me goofy. When I first started contributing to Wikivoyage, people in photo's was pretty much taboo. If we have a clear policy on this, I can not find it. If we have a clear/black and white policy, it may do away with one issue that continues to be an issue for conflict within the community and gets us nowhere. I suggest we adopt a policy like:Photo's that contain recognizable images of people are not acceptable for Wikivoyage/Wikishared and will be deleted. The only exception would be on a Contributor page, where a photo/photo's of the contributor is permissable. Forget the model release. The only problem it would create for me is that most of my photo's prior to Wikiworld contain people. I also have some great photo's, that I think would be great for Wikivoyage, and I have submitted some that are borderline, but I think it is time to end this conflict, everyone wants to push the line just a bit further. (WT-en) 2old 12:22, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I wouldn't speedy something like this, if there's any doubt then let it go through the vfd process. It also give the user a chance to see it here and understand why. In which case they might want to just put it on their userpage. If they haven't added it to a userpage by the time the 14 days is up, then I say we go ahead and delete it. 2old, I know your struggling with the image policy at the moment, but it really isn't all that unclear... if a person/persons are the main subject in a photo, then it's not ok. If they are tiny and in the background and not the focus of the picture, then it can probably slide. Like many other things in life, we have to use our judgement. Slapping a hardcore rule on WT forbidding any persons in any photo from any angle even in shadow and from behind doesn't do us any good... if there's doubt about a photo, vfd it and see what the community has to say. 99% of the photos uploaded here are fine... and occasionally we have to discuss the other 1%, that's inevitable.. we can't make crazy rules just to avoid having to have discussions :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:13, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, I had not thought about forbidding any persons in any photo from any angle even in shadow and from behind, just recognizable. And if you read, just a few VFD's up, you will see disagreement between some rather seasoned contributors on this subject. I did not just invent this idea, it was the policy when I first started submitting photo's. At that time I thought it to be a bit restrictive, but adapted to it (sorta). Anyway, It will not make or break my day either way. I thought it time to make it clear, as it seemed to be in the past. If the present policy continues, it will open the door for some of my questionable photo's, and then we can discuss them here. No problemo. (WT-en) 2old 10:44, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:52, 11 November 2007 (EST)

"Inti Wara Yassi is volunteer non-profit organization from Bolivia" ~ 203.189.134.3 10:27, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)


Wanted to develop it, but it turned out there is hardly anything attractive. (WT-en) LukeWestwalker ⇔ 11:53, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

If it is a real place (as World66 thinks, according to link above) and conceivable (even if unlikely) destination for a traveller (not only for a tourist, but including people who might have work there), then keep. Throw in a template, leave it as a stub and perhaps someone will fill it in. Lack of interesting sights is not a reason for deletion. It may be a reason to ignore it, leave it as a stub, but that's a different thing (WT-en) Pashley 23:07, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Keep - (WT-en) OldPine 23:31, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Keep. This seems clear. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:20, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:59, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Seeming copyvio from http://www.kohtaoeasydivers.com/kt_sd_dive.htm (press 'Skip Intro' and it's then presented as part of the flash animation). The image was used as part of a link to that exact site from Ko Tao (see an old revision), so it could be the shop itself, but it could also be a an overly helpful editor. There's nothing on the image page to explain and the editor has only been here for that one image. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:27, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Copyvio from tourism website, and has annoying text on the image. Cool image though. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:15, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Conflicts with Project:What is an article? ~ 203.189.134.3 04:56, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Advertisements. ~ 203.189.134.3 05:43, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:20, 11 November 2007 (EST)

No such place that I can find, previous content was graffiti. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. -- 24.147.175.14 14:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - Wikipedia doesn't have an article for it, but confirms that Avatele is a village of 150 people in the southwest part the island of Niue. (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:25, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Upload says they are flags from Karshkavinia. Couldn't find where such a place exists. -- 24.147.175.14 14:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:28, 11 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We generally frown upon images of businesses, and this is just a pic of the interior of a cafe. Also it's licensed as PD-old, which seems unlikely... it's in color, for one ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:40, 11 November 2007 (EST)


Advertisements / .psd ~ 203.189.134.3 03:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Topic is too general, material is already covered in other articles, text was copyvio of http://english(dot)china(dot)com. (blocked by spam filter) It could be redirected to either Fundamentals of flying or Tips for flying, but seeing as how Air travel doesn't even exist as a redirect, I don't see why the less-common term Air transport should exist.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Colva 2.JPG, Image:Calangute 2.JPG, Image:Vagator.JPG, and Image:Calangute 1.JPG are all violations of our privacy policy and should be deleted. They also lack licensing info, but I presume that they were taken by the uploader. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:12, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete. While legally these photos are OK since they don't meet the legal definition for recognizability (no one is clearly identifiable), they don't meet the guideline of avoiding pictures of people. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Unsure Based on this excerpt from image policy However, in public spaces people give up a certain degree of privacy, which means that they can be photographed (and cannot stop the process). At Wikivoyage, this is generally interpreted conservatively to mean that identifiable people in a picture should be peripheral to the picture content. For example, you can upload a picture of a crowded market or plaza, as long as you could take out or substitute any given person in it without materially affecting the picture. If the license is ok. (WT-en) 2old 16:30, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. nobody is really recognizable, and people should have an idea of what to expect at these beaches... an early morning shot of an empty beach would be a little misleading – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:13, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep (except maybe the last). They're all pictures of public beaches with random people in the background, none of whom are particularly recognizable or important, so the privacy policy doesn't apply. And particularly in India it'd be quite misleading to present a beach as beind devoid of people...! (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:01, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Conflicting policy. I pasted the policy for images above, then read the privacy policy if an image contains a subject that is identifiable, a model release is needed. These two policies seem to conflict. I have to plead guilty of posting an image with people in it, I also have to plead insanity for waiting 20 minutes or more to shoot subjects without people in them. I can remember earlier discusions when sillouetes of people were deleted and anything that had people in it was gone, gone, gone. I have no problem contibuting a photo with people in it and assuming the liability. However, if I am not in compliance with WT policy, that means something different and I like all contributors need to comply. As I remember (WT-en) Evan was one who was not in favor of people or sillouetes. I would appreciate his seasoned views on this. (WT-en) 2old 14:19, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't see it as conflicting statements, it isn't a black and white issue, and it's hard to reduce it to one... I think it's just giving you a general idea of the law and how WT conservatively interprets it... personally i think as long as a person isn't the main focus of the picture then you are fine, in my opinion – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:24, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
My beef with these images, regardless of privacy concerns, is that there are tourists in the foreground, despite the fact that they are not the subject of the image. People in the background of a photo of a crowded beach are appropriate, but the foreground (and recognizable) tourists make the images seem unprofessional for use in a travel guide. For what it's worth, the uploader has already voiced a desire to take and reupload photos of the same beaches which will be fully in compliance with our "people in images" policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:25, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted as per our guilty until proven innocent policy. This vfd has been around longer than it deserves and I'm sure we can get better photos of those places. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 00:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)

No sign of a model release. It also probably fufills the other argument for not having photos of people on Wikivoyage: it's just not a very interesting illustration of travel (it was used on Ko Tao, but ascents/descents look like that on pretty much every decent visiblity dive). (WT-en) Hypatia 02:16, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - due to lack of license more than anything else --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:50, 19 November 2007 (EST)

More borderline on model release (not sure the person is identifiable), but they're still the primary focus of the picture. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - due to lack of license more than anything else --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:57, 19 November 2007 (EST)

More a single site or monument than a park, I think. Does not appear to have any accommodation options. Previous text was copyvio wikipedia.

  • Delete - This site can adequately be covered in the region article or nearest city article.(WT-en) Texugo 00:07, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Utah. I've gone ahead and done the redirect, but will leave this vfd here for a bit longer in case anyone disagree. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect. It would be good to keep the redirect page, for the sake of those who've heard of the NHS and want to visit it, but don't know what town to use as a base of operations. The answer, btw, is Brigham City, which is not hopelessly small -- population over 15,000 -- and certainly qualifies as a destination. The redirect should be amended to point to this article iff it gets created. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:13, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Utah (for now). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Beaches, lighthouses, and boat landings don't get their own articles. I moved the info to the Bristol (Maine) article.

Outcome: All deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. It's been around for several months, no pages link to it, and it appears to be directly copied in from Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:05, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Thesse things are a lot more trouble on Wikipedia than they're worth, I'd suggest delete'ing this. (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:01, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:12, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:05, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:08, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:14, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. Licensed as pd-old, but doesn't look it... also looks like a helicopter shot... I seriously question its pd-ness without a source given – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:16, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Licensed as pd-old, but looks unlikely... is also too small to be useful here, and almost looks as if it they were taken from a tourism website – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:25, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:28, 21 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete.Redirect to Greenland According to Wikipedia and Jpatokal it's tiny, only been visited once in the history of mankind, and isn't really a practical destination unless you're part of a professional expedition, etc. You can't sleep there, eat there, or do much of anything there – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:11, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Northern Greenland and put any relevant information in that article. The only possible way to visit ATOW1996 would be as part of a larger expedition through this area. Certainly a 10-meter long rocky outcrop in the middle of a sea of ice doesn't need its own article. At least not until they built a Disney World there. (WT-en) Texugo 01:48, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Disney on ice indeed! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:08, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Northern Greenland. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:21, 22 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Look very much like a copyvio, and most likely from the official Leysin website, though uploader licensed them as pd-old. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. The image is freely and publicly available on posters and banners in Leysin. I rather think that Leysin Tourism far from regarding it as a copyright violation, would regard it as useful information.
  • Unless the copyright holder releases it under a Creative Commons license, we cannot use it. Making it available does not constitute a release. If you think it should be kept, ask them for a release. (WT-en) Pashley 18:20, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Both deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:28, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Per Project:What is an article? 61.7.183.4 00:01, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:12, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It should be appropriate to list tour operators on Wikivoyage. Aren't travelers often interested in finding travel agents and tour operators? Welcome, business owners encourages businesses to add listings. I believe I followed the guidelines for Words to avoid and Don't tout. I admit it should be longer, but that's not grounds for deletion. (WT-en) David-journeys.travel 08:43, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
    • Tour operators are generally welcome in destination articles, as long as they're primary providers and not just resellers. This makes sense when you think about it: people are unlikely to find you by searching for your company name, but they can find out about you by reading (eg.) Antarctica. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Appreciate your attempt to participate in the process, but Project:What is an article? trumps all. We don't have articles for tour operators. You could put that text on User:(WT-en) David-journeys.travel, but that's about it. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Should we add "tour operators" to the list of what DOES NOT get its own article on Project:What is an article? (WT-en) David-journeys.travel 09:24, 5 November 2007 (EST)
    • Well, the rule of thumb is that it's not a destination unless you can sleep there... but sure, I've added it for completeness. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)
  • Would a "Tour operators" travel topic article or a group of smaller ones, "Tour operators in Asia" and siblings, work? I'd say likely for out-of-the way places like Antartica, but then that might just be covered in the Antartica article. I'm not certain having an article for e.g. "Tour operators in the US" is a good idea, but it seems worth asking. It would solve two problems for this contributor. It provides a place to put his material and it does not matter that the info on one operator is too short for much of an aricle; it is just fine as a bullet point in a larger article. (WT-en) Pashley 20:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)
I would say emphatically NO... that's opening a fairly large can o' worms. Can you imagine what "Tour operators in Kathmandu" might look like? Yikes. I'm of the opinion that listing tour operators should be reserved for times when guides are required or are a very good idea due to high risk situations... but I know there's others with differing opinions, so... there's my $0.02 – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:24, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:31, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Uploaded to shared. (WT-en) WTDuck2 15:16, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted; image now on Wikivoyage Shared. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Supporting phrase removed to comply with blacklist is not the task of wikivoyage 64.72.125.6 10:55, 23 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete Wikivoyage should not support illegal and immoral activities. What would be the xext? Traveladvice for cheap prostitutes, for child abuseres, Trafficing Of Women or drug trafficing. Thefore also the article about homosexuals must be deleted !!! 72.9.247.74
  • Let's put this through the process in spite of the offensiveness of the request. Keep; it's a valid travel topic. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep A valid travel topic. Not sure what would be xext. --(WT-en) OldPine 11:21, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Delete Not a valid travel topic, because it refers to an illegal acivity (in many countries) and is deterrent to society (WT-en) 4711 12:43, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. For one, none of the reasons for deletion anyone has outlined above has anything to do with our Deletion policy. Second, it's a valid travel topic, and Wikivoyage isn't the only website to see that. Other travel sites like Orbitz and Travelocity also make an effort to accommodate gay and lesbian travelers. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:16, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. Without a deletion policy-related rationale, articles do not get deleted. The policy on illegal activities states that when an activity is illegal somewhere, we should relay that information to travelers for their own safety; it does not suggest that we avoid giving useful information to travelers, which is exactly what this article does, in line with the mission of Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:23, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. Reasons for deletion not valid. --(WT-en) Morph 15:29, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • DELETE. Sex tourism is banned from Wikivoyage. Obviosly there is no difference between prostitution and other phrase removed to comply with blacklist like homosexuality. If pricing infos for prostitution are banned homosexual activities should not be supported either!!! 69.89.21.75 15:41, 25 November 2007 (EST)
What our sex tourism policy states is that we will not have information on where/how to actually engage in sexual activities. This sort of info isn't what's in the gay and lesbian travel guide. Rather, what's in there is info about where homosexuality is illegal and where gay and lesbian travelers would find themselves most welcome. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:58, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, topic is valid, the deletion nomination sounds incredibly homophobic. --(WT-en) The Yeti 16:04, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, censorship based on personal opinions is simply ridiculous. I don't believe we should burn so much dinosaur juice, but I will support anyone's right to create articles on flying. I think the world is overpopulated and we should have less kids, but I'll support anyone's right to create articles like London with children. I think China has an atrocious human rights history and they should abolish communism, but I'll support their right to have articles here. Same goes for Gay and lesbian travel --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 16:28, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep We need not get into which is the best spot to pick up cute boys, but information on where gays might be shot and where they hang out is a sensible thing to have. Also, as for prostitution, the info is also useful to those who want to avoid the activity, to stay out of the red light district or the the gay bars. (WT-en) Pashley 19:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep Gay and lebian travelers are an identifiable and well-defined set of travelers. --(WT-en) Wandering 20:29, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy keep. The addition of this to the vfd page by the anon vandal should have been reverted as vandalism... let's stop feeding the troll – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:56, 25 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep, of course. It's great to have so many anonymous users at identical levels of semi-literacy involved in the policy process, though. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
  • DELETE It is a clear violation of the Sex tourism policy (WT-en) 009 17:11, 26 November 2007 (EST)
    • Stating that it is a clear violation does not make it so. The sex tourism policy is about prostitution and similar activities, which is not a topic covered in the nominated article. The fact that the person who wrote the sex tourism policy also contributed to the nominated article should give you some clue that the nominated article is not in conflict with policy. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:11, 26 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. Nominator made no valid nomination per the Fine Rules. Nominator would need to cite a reason per the deletion policy rather than just say he doesn't like it. Oh, and each person only gets one vote, so there's only one vote against currently. See also Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:11, 26 November 2007 (EST)
  • Cacahuate is right. This is a speedy keep. See policy discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Two_weeks_to_ten_days.2C_maybe_less.3F. I'm closing it now. (WT-en) Pashley 05:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: kept.

Not an article. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:22, 13 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Agree. --(WT-en) OldPine 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect to Amritsar. This is a famous site; people might know of it but not know the city. Treat it like Taj Mahal with a redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 20:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect to Amritsar – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:58, 13 November 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect. It's reasonable for people to look for an article by this name, even though it's not exactly a destination/you-can-sleep-there, so help them navigate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:00, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Amritsar. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Violates image policy by having recognizable person in the photo. -- (WT-en) OldPine 20:48, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Advertisement, has nothing to do with a destination/topic/etc. I was tempted to speedy-delete this, but when in doubt, follow the process... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:05, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2007&oldid=4919895"