Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2008

Add links
From Wikivoyage

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in November 2008. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/October 2008 or Project:Votes for deletion/December 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

A hotel is not an article.

I don't know if it is copyright or not, but it is commercial in style at least. A photo montage with gigantic text is inappropriate for use on Wikivoyage.

  • Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 01:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • I dunno; assuming its free of copyright, I kinda like having a montage as the lead image. At least, I think it's a valid option that editors could decide to use. I agree the big text is non-optimal for our purposes. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:31, 26 November 2008 (EST)
The idea of a montage image doesn't bother me much in principle, but the result is that unless you make the image gigantic, all the individual photos end up being too small to see any detail. (WT-en) Texugo 09:07, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete. I think the idea of a montage goes against the idea of a wiki. With any other picture or article, any image or part of the article can be changed or edited. A montage doesn't feel open, it is one person's expression that can't then be modified. The montage should only be allowed if all the source images and references are uploaded also. --(WT-en) Inas 19:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This guy doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of English, which really is a big rule here:Know English! I suggest we redirect this guy to Chinese? But we need to delete his membership, unless he shows a understanding of English. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 21:22, 17 November 2008 (EST).

Keep. This is a bit of weird case, but we don't delete users, ever. And, since there are no external links, I don't see any harm in keeping his weird rants on his talk page either. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
But he doesnt know English. Why is he on the english one? It doesnt make sense, we need someone who knows his dialect to tell him! Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 00:02, 18 November 2008 (EST).
Just wanted to comment that anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikivoyage, regardless of the language version, and regardless of their language proficiency. Someone with no knowledge of English can, for example, contribute images & interwiki links. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Keep the user and the talk page. However, I deleted all the Chinese text. (WT-en) Pashley 06:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Oy...I dont think you guys see where I am coming from. Now you are all lookin at me like an idiot. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST).


We should delete this page as it isn't a valid name for a page so it doesn't contribute any, but we should move his question to his talk pg. Whatcha say?

  • Delete. This seems like an encyclopedic entry, which doesn't work towards our goals of aiding travelers. It also seems to have only ever existed to spam for a certain site. I'd say rewrite, but I can't really imagine how we could turn this into a useful travel topic. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Chavín de Huantar (was Chavin)

[edit]

I'm not completely sure this skeletal article should be deleted; it does point to a real archaeological site. However, I've been unable to find any evidence that it qualifies as a "destination" in terms of places to sleep, etc. Someone want to do some research? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:37, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep/Move Just been having a quick read of the Wikipedia entry and the Wikivoyage policies. As you say, it is a real archaeological site. Whilst these don't necessarily qualify for their own entries, What is an article? does suggest that sites that are "far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay" means that this site may be an exception, given Lima seems to be 250km (155 miles) away. I suspect this will be at least a 4 hour trip each way, and so would qualify as too far away for a day trip. My Peruvian geography isn't great though, so does anyone know if there is a significant settlement any nearer? However, the article does need some fleshing out to be worthwhile.
I suggest a Move as Chevin seems to refer to a people, and so not elegible for an article. The proper name appears to be Chavín de Huantar, and so may be more in keeping with policy if the article were renamed to reflect this. (WT-en) Nrms 09:05, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
OK, so no-one's objected in 14 days to this being moved, so have done so.
Only 1 other person has commented so far. No real consensus either way, but no-one's actually given a firm Delete yet, so is there a way forward? (WT-en) Nrms 05:09, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep You can sleep there now (as of 2 minutes ago) :o) (WT-en) Sertmann 05:49, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept but moved, as suggested. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Copyrighted image from http://www.bluesagegrille.com/.

Copyrighted image from http://www.kennys.us/.

Outcome for the above three: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete?. I don't know for sure that this should be deleted. Does it meet our criteria for an airport getting an article? It should be city-sized to do so, with sleep options within the airport, I believe. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I'd be willing to waive the "sleep there" requirement for the largest, most complex airports, due to their importance to the traveler. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, that's the thing—the largest, most complex airports (like Heathrow, Osaka, and O'Hare for example) all do have sleep options. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
But it's not just the sleeping options that make those articles useful to the traveler. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
The biggest International gateway to the United States should not be deleted from Wikivoyage. That's a strange criteria that you have that says that the airport must have an onsite on hotel. Atlanta is the biggest aiport in the world for passengers, Memphis is for cargo, NYC-JFK is the biggest gaetway as already said, and LAX is the second largest gateway and it has no onsite hotel. That's a flawed criteria and these airports should not only be here but all airports should ultimately be here as is the case with Wikipedia. I am updating and significantly expanding the JFK article in preparation for it to remain on Wikivoyage. (WT-en) QualityControl3533 02:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Those are all reasons why they would qualify for articles on Wikipedia, but we have much different needs here. The question is whether there's much to say that actually serves a traveler and helps on their trip... information about which airlines fly into JFK and how to get to and from it should be covered in the New York City#Get in section, not in a separate article. Random encyclopedic info about JFK should be covered in the Wikipedia article, not on Wikivoyage. Which leaves us with sleeping and eating options, and if there are no sleeping options, we don't exactly need an article about JFK that describes the variance between TGI Fridays in Terminal 1 and TGI Fridays in Terminal 2 – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
The section you linked largely discusses how to get into New York City from the airports, not how to get in to the airports themselves. Also, in addition to "Eat" and "Sleep", the sections for "Get around", "Stay safe", and "Buy" would be different for airport articles than for their surrounding cities. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I haven't even looked at NYC's get in section, it may well need expanding and improving, but without a doubt that's the correct place for the info I mention. And for pretty much any airport you could cover all 3 of the other topics you mention in as many sentences or less, if there's even anything relevant to say at all... "Get around" doesn't need a ton of explaining and can easily fit within the city's get in section, "Stay safe" is irrelevant for most airports but could also be covered in the city article if there's something pertinent and for "Buy", see my TGI Friday's example above ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, it just seems really odd not to have an article on one of the largest airports in the United States. I agree it's not much as far as a destination goes, but surely it's a valid travel topic? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not so sure... it's only purpose in life is to act as a portal to NYC, and we can describe how to make use of that just fine in the NYC article... beyond that, all else that you would say about it is probably going to be more relevant to the Wikipedia article on JFK rather than the WT one. Would Rough Guide devote a separate guidebook to discussing JFK? Or even devote a chapter to it? I would guess that they would cover it in a paragraph or two in the NYC guide – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, here's my mode of thinking. When I fly in to someplace new, if I'm going to be needing to find my way around an airport, I find it useful to know the general layout, where the borders between secured/unsecured areas are, where the food is (is there good food in the terminal wings or should I head out to the main concourse), what stores are available (duty free? not?), how big the place is, and any unusual or unique things to watch out for. That seems like useful information for a travel guide. If you think it can all go in the city article, so be it, but it makes more sense to me to have it in an article about the airport. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:08, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
It is often good info, I just think it should be covered quickly in the city article if it's of note, unless and until it's just too unwieldy – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 15:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
So it isn't helpful to know what cities each airline flies to from the biggest airport in the biggest city in the United States in a "travel guide"??? Also, if you already had the initial information without which cities each airline flies to in the NYC article then why did you create an identical offshoot of the GetIn section to begin with? (WT-en) QualityControl3533 01:34, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, the idea is that we should have information on which cities fly into JFK, but that we shouldn't separate that from the NYC article--spreading information across many pages usually makes finding it more difficult, and should only be done when there's just too much information to include in one article (that's why, for example, it's necessary to split city information for NYC across district pages). In my experience, when an airport isn't big enough for its own article (and to this date, we've only done airport articles for the very largest ones in the world, not just the largest within important cities) it can be helpful to wrap a bunch of airport information into a district article (that contains the airport), along with the usual district info. I did this with Chicago/Midway Area—perhaps that might be a useful way to handle JFK? I don't know, since I've only ever used Newark International for NYC. So I'm still abstaining from a vote for now ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
The only reason that this would qualify as an article is if there was too much valid and well written info in NYC#Get in and it was becoming unruly and gargantuan... that isn't the case... and if it someday becomes the case, then we can discuss at Talk:New York City and come up with a solution then, no? Let's solve the problem once it needs solving – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Let's merge what we have then and continue the expansion that has already started here in the NYC article then instead of just deleting everything. How about let's stop saying what we know is the best move to make and make it! (WT-en) QualityControl3533 22:56, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge with NYC Article(WT-en) QualityControl3533 22:59, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Looks like a consensus is forming around a merge & delete redirect solution. Sounds good to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge and redirect would be better, wouldn't it? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:37, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm not a regular here, but I say keep - a lot of people come through JFK but are not visiting NYC. JFK is a major hub for international flights. It would be useful to have information there about food, shops, etc. What about internet access? Also, even though there are no hotels right at the airport, what to do if you get stuck there? There are hotels right around the airport. The Ramada Plaza JFK International Airport is located onsite, and there are several others in the area, convenient to the airport. There is plenty to say here that would be far too detailed in the NYC article. It's the same way that an article about Heathrow Airport can be useful, and I wouldn't want to bother finding that all the same information within the London article. (WT-en) Aude 19:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree, but it looks as though the consensus is that until we have that much information on JFK, then there's no need for a separate article. I can see the reasoning. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
      • I like Wikivoyage, but wouldn't bother looking in the NYC article for information about JFK (if I was just passing through). I would keep looking elsewhere than Wikivoyage. Since so many people just pass through, it makes sense to go ahead and keep the article and improve it. (WT-en) Aude 19:36, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
First, don't worry about being a regular or not, your opinion is always welcome ;) You're right—but that's why we should have the redirect to New York (city)#John F Kennedy International Airport. If you search for JFK airport, that should take you straight to the information in the get in section of NYC, where you should find what you are looking for. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but there is nothing about food or hotels near JFK in the NYC article. Nor should that be the place to put it. Also, I would seriously forget about wikivoyage and just look elsewhere. But if we keep the JFK article, then people can put information useful to people passing through the airport and not visiting NYC. And people might find wikivoyage useful and not need to look elsewhere. Remember the traveller comes first. (WT-en) Aude 01:43, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge with NYC article Why not have the BEST and MOST comprehensive travel guide that would satisfy anybody's travel needs when using this airport or visiting New York City? If I were going to NYC the first thing I would consider is what airline or transportation takes me to thet city from where I live. My edits to the article, which have now been restored and will be expanded if the article is merged, and incorporating that into the NYC article do just that. Aude is basically saying that we should keep the article solo, removing so much information that their edits had rendered it unfit to stand alone, and then going on to say that Wikivoyage isn't really that important anyway so why bother. How does that help anything? (WT-en) QualityControl3533 00:57, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm curious where it is you think you're going to go as an alternative to Wikivoyage where you are expecting to find entire chapters devoted to airports and what to do in and around them... I've never come across such a guide – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge and Redirect. That's where I come down. No one mentions the slippery slope of deciding where the line between large and small airports is drawn? That ought to be worth a couple million lines of off-namespace edits. 12:11, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, I think I mentioned it. The same criterion for any article—can you sleep there. And I don't mean whether it's quiet enough to get a nap across 3-4 seats by the gate. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Undecided Sorry... I want to say Keep as I think large airports should have articles (has there been a policy discussion on this matter?) since some people can end up spending many hours in them either through having to arrive early for flights, or lengthy connections. However, having read the article in question, I'm not really sure there is any benefit to be gained from the article. Perhaps a Rewrite is what is needed. Sadly, having never used this airport I'm not really in a position to offer to do this. (WT-en) Nrms 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
  • We need to close the book on this one. I'd say the consensus is to keep it, although there's still division in the house. Again, starting a 24-hour clock here; if there are no new points being made, I'll archive it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:11, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I think the consensus it to keep the info, but merge it into NYC article... but we're back to the issue of that nobody actually puts in the work to do it before the vfd closes :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:34, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep and come up with a policy regarding airports. First of all the article os of poor quality and is not comprehensive. However, if someone living near or knowledgeable about the airport took the time to clean it up, then it is something that should be kept, here's my thinking: First of all, there are a lot of airports with their own page on Wikivoyage...just search "airport". JFK is a major airport for international flights, thus many people will spend time in the airport transferring between a domestic and international flight or vica versa. It deserves its own page not simply because lots of people use it, but because for many it is just a destination...with shopping, food, sleep, etcetera...look at the O'Hare International Airport article! Putting it into the NYC article wold be too cluttering because there are at least 2 large airports serving NYC and putting a large chunk of information into the NYC article wold further clutter it. If you merge it into a neighborhood article (Brooklyn?), it would be hard to find for people unacquainted with the city, and people would have to put things like food, sleep, etc into those sections in the neighborhood article, cluttering those and potentially causing confusion. So I think it should be left alone (and it would be great if someone would expand it). Additionally, there needs to be a policy about airports on this site. If you are going to be deleting airports due to their lack of importance...try starting with Comiso Airport or San Diego International Airport . (WT-en) AHeneen 00:06, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
We pretty much came to a consensus to merge the relevant info back into NYC, this is only still sitting here because nobody has taken the initiative to do it yet. I just had a look, and there's really not much worth keeping that isn't already in NYC article, so I've redirected it (along with San Diego and Comiso :)) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: redirected – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:39, 2 November 2008 (EST)


  • Delete. userpage advertising (WT-en) 2old 09:35, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. We're generally pretty liberal with user pages, and Project:Welcome, business owners contains the guidance "...it's quite alright to put information about yourself and your business on your User page (if you don't turn it into a marketing brochure)". I don't think this page does more than describe the business, and while it would have been nice if this user made a contribution other than just advertising his business I don't think we want to set a precedent of preventing user pages from containing business info for travel-related commercial contributors. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:21, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Agree with Ryan – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep (WT-en) Pashley 01:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete If we allow unfettered advertising on users homepages, then its a can of worms. Every business can place a full ad page on wikivoyage. Waut for the first trademark dispute on usernames. Its far away from the goal of creating a travel guide --(WT-en) Inas 04:40, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Just a note, this is also up for VFD on shared, please voice your opinions there too, since this is a precedent-setting issue – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
If there is a consensus there, I think it is that user pages should be within reasonable limits, and what is reasonable can be handled through the VFD process (since there is no other!) If this page remains unchanged, essentially it sets a precedent that any company can set up a home page with their ads on wikivoyage, no requirement to make a conttribution to the guide, just log on, create an ad, and move on. If we decide that lies within our reasonable limits, then so be it.. --(WT-en) Inas 07:17, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
My understanding of the outcome of that discussion was that we'll respect userspace up to the point at which it becomes linkspam, or is inappropriate because it either: violates our sex tourism policy, or is fraudulent. I'd also delete pages that are being used for cyber-bullying. You'll note that in that discussion I came down on the side of deleting ads in userspace, but my main point is that this page, which is the only page where we use the guilty until proven innocent rule, cannot be used as a workaround discussions or existing consensus. That would violate the basic principle of how our site works, and can really poison debate (this has happened before). Preserving our consensus-based mode of working together is way more important than the outcome of this issue, IMO. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:34, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Somewhat ironically, it appears we disagree over the consensus. --(WT-en) Inas 22:00, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Apologies to those who consider that what I have written is not appropriate here. As someone who works in a specialist area of insurance, I was hoping to warn and inform people by writing something. It was my first time visiting the site and I don't wish to contravene its intentions. Somehow, what I wrote was originally in the 'shared' part of the site - I was learning about the site and didn't even realise I was in that section - it was all a bit confusing! I thought I was remaining within the guidelines laid out for businesses. Apologies if I have failed. I would rather amend my article and, hopefully, write others that might be useful to people than just be deleted altogether. I'd be happy to receive guidance. --(WT-en) It's So Easy Travel Insurance 17:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

We have an article on Travel insurance. Contributions there would be welcome provided you don't tout. (WT-en) Pashley 06:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Sooo, can the consensus on this one be interpreted as keep? --(WT-en) Stefan Talk 06:47, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I'd go with that. There is policy allowing userpage advertising, within limits. It's also nice to see that the user concerned has at least had the courtesy to apologise/acknowledge the vfd and seems willing to be educated by the community. (WT-en) Nrms 06:52, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: kept

  • Delete Speedy? Was a tout page. Content has been removed. (WT-en) Nrms 17:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
    • Speedied. Definitely not a valid article title. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:27, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted.

Not a valid article title.

Outcome: Speedy deleted.

If neither Wikipedia or Google know of a region named Sintran, i do have my doubt that such place exists ;-) probaby refers to Sintra which already have good coverage

  • Yeah, delete. Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 16:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Sintra. General policy is to set up redirects for articles with titles that are plausible typing errors. I'm not totally sure this one qualifies, but what's the harm? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:50, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Sure. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Redirect Agree with Bill. As discussion is over 14 days old, ee has changed his delete to a redirect, I'll do the redirect. (WT-en) Nrms 06:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Sintra

  • Delete Not a travel destination (WT-en) Nrms 15:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Was speedied by Cjensen on Nov 4th

  • Delete Not a travel article. (WT-en) Nrms 03:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)
    • Speedy deleted. No point in waiting. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Vandalism, someone please speedy this (WT-en) Sertmann 09:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)

  • Delete Firstly, because it is likely a copyvio. Secondly, because it is a bizarre concept, that should not be encouraged. Thirdly, it is a really really bad photo. --(WT-en) Inas 00:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete - It's just a bad idea all around. (WT-en) Texugo 00:39, 7 November 2008 (EST)
  • Speedied as copyvio. As a derivative work, the photographer can't release it into the public domain. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)

As above, image copyright violation from http://www.turismo-en-peru.com.

  • Delete -- (WT-en) Texugo 01:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)
  • Do you have a link directly to the image on that web site? I can't find it. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Delete. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 00:44, 8 November 2008 (EST).
I just suspected it because the entire article was copyvio, but I found the link here. I speedied it. (WT-en) Texugo 00:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Obviously not an article, despite the swell spelling job.

Official advertising flyers have no place in Wikivoyage, not to mention the likely copyright violation.

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 23:52, 8 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete. Should not be here. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 23:54, 8 November 2008 (EST).
  • Speedy deleted. Copyvio, trademark violation, and too small to boot. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete This is an advertisment page; not a destination. Have left welcome message and some advice on the associated user talk page to try and educate. (WT-en) Nrms 05:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete I added this page before I realised it should have had an accent in the title. The correct page is La Línea, which is where the pages on Algeciras and Gibraltar now link to. (WT-en) Linucks 14:57, 12 November 2008 (EST)
  • (WT-en) Peter redirected it, as appropriate. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)
  • Keep - We typically keep the unaccented page title as a redirect, as a courtesy for those who can not conveniently type special characters on their keyboards. (WT-en) Texugo 01:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: redirected. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)


Since this is not a user page, i think it's an apt candidate for a speedy deletion - anyone with janitorial privileges care to chip in? :o) (WT-en) Sertmann 06:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Shouldn't you have them by now? Been well over 14 days, and no-one's objected :) But if there is anyone out there, I'd support a speedy. It's a clear ad page. Sertmann... Have you "educated" the user by pointing out the relevant policy on their Talk page yet? :) (WT-en) Nrms 06:34, 13 November 2008 (EST)
weeeeeell, I was.... erm... sort of, getting to that - shortly, of some sorts :o) (WT-en) Sertmann 06:36, 13 November 2008 (EST)


Not an article.


  • Don't know what these are, but they aren't articles and I'm pretty sure we don't need them as they were just created three weeks ago. Probable speedies. BTW, I can't add a VFD tag to the pages because something in them triggers the spam filter. (WT-en) JYolkowski 17:44, 17 November 2008 (EST)
  • Speedied. They were large chunks of PHP code, possibly parts of the Mediawiki software. (WT-en) Pashley 06:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)


Content was all copyvio from here, and the article is not really named in a wikivoyage style, unsuitable to be re-written since of course any new itinerary article here has not been "awarded" anything.


Anonymous user created this and doesn't belong to be it's own article.


  • Delete This is a resort rather than a destination. Possibly add as a "Sleep" if there is a relevant destination page? (WT-en) Nrms 09:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
  • Speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)


Copyrighted image from http://www.yellowspringsohio.org/street_fair.html.

Copyrighted image from http://www.west-chester.com/.

A painting of a commercial facility. Also a likely copyright infringement but I don't have proof.

With all these copyright's, why not try and get an agreement? I'm on 'delete until further notice. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)


Copyrighted image-- copyright notice is printed right on the photo!

  • Delete Might seem like I'm being unfair here, but the page has nothing linking to it. It refers to an old Scottish County (not UK City as the page states) which no longer exists, and only has one item which is an Inn with only a phone number supplied. The page has been like this since it was created in March 2008.
I'm not sure a page on a defunct county should qualify for a travel guide - seems more an encyclopedic entry unless someone really wants to turn it into some sort of itinery? (WT-en) Nrms 09:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete Recognizable people in picture (WT-en) Sertmann 05:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 08:47, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I mean, it looks like an interesting picture and the people aren't really the focus, they just add to the picture and I like it. They are an element of the picture. It makes it not look like a ghost town, ;). Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 16:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. The bike man is the focus of the picture, which is the problem. "Recognizable" isn't the issue though, it's whether any single person is the focus, we allow pictures of markets/crowds with recognizable people as long as they aren't the focus and the picture could stand alone without them – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:26, 2 November 2008 (EST)
  • Deleted -- (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)


All images by Wfnicdao

[edit]

This user uploaded some maps from commons and called them PD when they weren't, so I'm listing all their images here, again all noted as PD, and I doubt they are. If user cares to link to the sources then we can reconsider, otherwise all should be deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:22, 2 November 2008 (EST)

This page is unneccessary. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 23:25, 4 November 2008 (EST).

It's already been redirected to Paris#Sleep, as it should be. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:55, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Created presumably as an itinerary, but with text in spanish and an image all copied from http://www.turismo-en-peru.com.


Improper article title, and all content was copyvio from http://www.discoveryangtze.com/Yangtzediscovery/little_three_gorges.htm.

  • Delete This is a 2 line page which should really be on the Poland page; so have added the text there so this can be deleted. (WT-en) Nrms 05:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
  • Support I just don't see this developing into a decent separate article. (WT-en) Sertmann 05:42, 13 November 2008 (EST)
  • Because it was merged, we should change it into a redirect, maintaining the page history for attribution purposes. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)
  • Outcome: Merge and redirect to Poland (WT-en) Nrms 05:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)
  • Redirect Seems to be an alternative spelling for Symi which already exists as a substantial article. (WT-en) Nrms 07:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
    • Wikipedia says they're the same. Feel free to redirect it yourself. Syme should also be a redirect. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)
  • Outcome: Redirected to Symi. Also created Syme to redirect to Symi (WT-en) Nrms 05:35, 26 November 2008 (EST)


An attraction, not a destination. Not properly capitalized, and all content was copyvio from http://www.discoveryangtze.com/Yangtzediscovery/three_gorges_dam.htm.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2008&oldid=4919896"