Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2009

Add links
From Wikivoyage

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in November 2009. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/October 2009 or Project:Votes for deletion/December 2009 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

  • Delete, it is not used as a sub-region of South America, so why would we have an article for this region? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 11:28, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Note: article was missing VFD tag; I've added it. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:35, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Wikivoyage doesn't cover entire mountain ranges. Information about specific mountains should be placed on city pages or given their own page, if there is enough to see/do on a specific mountain within the Andes. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:12, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, change format to disamb. The text that currently exists in the article seems reasonable to me. It directs the traveller to the regions they will get information. Lets remove the current template, and put the info there currently into a disamb format. --(WT-en) inas 22:42, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. I can't say I care much whether the result is a disambig or an actual region article, but I don't see any reason to get rid of a valid, coherent region article, regardless of whether it is part of the hierarchy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:29, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep Wikivoyage actually does have coverage for the Alps and Himalayas, so unless there is consensus to get rid of those, as well, the Andes are legitimate. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:38, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Would you care to comment on whether you think the full region template or a disamb is more appropriate? After all, the Alps contains the far too useful advice to eat fondue, so we have much to look forward to in the Eat section of the Andes. --(WT-en) inas 01:57, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
I feel there may not be much to say about the entire mountain ranges that would make them useful articles beyond Wikipedia-type facts. I think a disambiguation page with links to more specific articles (either mountains within the range or cities in the mountains or cities where tourists can access parts of the mountain) is likely to be more helpful. Itineraries that include the mountains are also good to link from the disambiguation page. Stating where/what to eat, where to sleep, etc. are just not practical, because there are too many places from Peru to Chile. It seems impractical, as a guide. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:26, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
I'd say the Andes have a distinct cultural heritage from the Incan and surrounding civilizations of yore, as well as from the realities of high altitude living, which could lend to a good region article. There's certainly more of interest to write about than for South Central Nebraska. Our region articles are almost universally terrible, but that's a different issue to work out, I think. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:39, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
True enough, but when you see the opportunity to have one less, why not take it!? --(WT-en) inas 05:42, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Do you think this type of article warrants a sort of half-disambiguation, half-article page? I mean, I agree with Peter that there are things you can say about the culture and history of the area, but I still think that when it comes to sleeping, eating, see, do, etc. it is more helpful to have links to places within the range. If it doesn't have such links, then it's sort of a hollow, dead-end article. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:12, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Change to disambig - And hey Pashley, you just voted to keep on the basis of Rocky Mountains which is only a disambiguation page. What gives? (WT-en) Texugo 00:46, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
I'd say we should have something for any reasonable search term, or any term it might be convenient for a writer to link to — Andes, Taj Mahal, Bombay, Appalachia, ... — but we don't want redundant articles, so disambigs are fine for most of them. Writing about Quito, it seems reasonable to me to say it is high in the Andes, so I want something at "Andes". (WT-en) Pashley 23:33, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
In nearly all cases, I completely fail to see that overlap of region articles is a problem. Yes, we need a hierarchical scheme for the breadcrumbs, but that scheme is not sacred. To me, Rocky Mountains or Baltic Sea are obviously valid titles, although neither makes a coherent region for the hierarchical scheme. Listing Turkey in both the Europe and Middle East articles seems to me the obvious thing to do. And so on. I do not consider "it does not fit our hierarchy" a valid reason for deletion. (WT-en) Pashley 23:45, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep - Geographical features such as major mountain ranges provide an alternative way of viewing travel. If I wanted to visit the Andes it would be useful to know which countries, and which parts of those countries, contain the Andes. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:00, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Basically an advertisement for www.trulyremote.com (which I'll proceed remove the link to per our external links policy), I think it's aptly covered in our excellent Off the Beaten Path section. Delete or redirect there, don't really care. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:37, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete I was about to nominate it myself, but you beat me to it! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete and don't even bother with the redirect. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 22:48, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Seems like a useful search term. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedied. User deleted the content for the second time, and reviving it seemed sorta pointless, we can allways make a new redirect if anyone else sees that as a good idea. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:32, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
    • ... you speedied something I'd explicitly recommended keeping? Nice. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:23, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Edit warring over a guide with content it seems like noone, including the author, wanted to keep seemed a bit obsessive to me. And if there is a consensus for a redirect, well, the only changed is whether the link is red or black when it's created. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:06, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
The speedy deletion rules are pretty clear, I'd thought. Why did you even bring it up here if you were just going to speedy it anyway? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Exactly because it was a likely search term, but I didn't know it would prompt an edit war when I nominated it, these guys generally don't tend to return once they've gotten their links sneaked in. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:49, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Sertmann, while I agree with the end result, according to Deletion policy, you were out of line there — no speedies if there's any doubt. However, this is actually a bit of a grey area, so I've raised a discussion on Project:Deletion policy#Speedying VFD-listed articles to clarify the wording. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:29, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Okay, okay, okay.... point taken, jesus. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:19, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I hate the redirect. Remote means something entirely different to off the beaten path to me. --(WT-en) inas 08:09, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. I would not go as far as "entirely different"; there is considerable overlap. However, "remote" and "off the beaten path" are certainly not synonyms. Pitcairn or Hovd might fit both categories, but Kilkenny and Penticton are by no means remote. (WT-en) Pashley 09:06, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

All of the content is a copyright violation from Explore magazine. Either delete or maybe empty and re-direct to Williams Lake. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:07, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. Useless and copy-vio (WT-en) jan 06:48, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete, since the capitalisation is wrong as well. (WT-en) Pashley 07:36, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete for the above reasons. (WT-en) Texugo 12:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Empty river article. I hate to vfd another body of water while there is a discussion going on, but this one seems rather clear cut. All previous content was copyvio, now deleted.

I rather like these three pictures, but they violate our policy about people in photos.

  • Delete all - (WT-en) Texugo 13:02, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Not sure What about the part that states "Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform." These pictures are from the Indigenous Peoples Trail article, which seems to be showcasing various cultures and people of the area... Would these pictures then be examples of showcasing the various ethnic groups? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:20, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, I re-read that to make sure too, but they definitely aren't showcasing sports, activities or crowds, and I don't really think you could say they are showcasing a costume or uniform either. It doesn't list an exception for showcasing the ethnicity itself either. With almost the same argument, I could upload a picture of a typical Japanese salaryman passed out on the train or a Cearense fisherman with his jangada, but my understanding is that those aren't allowed because there is no model release. (WT-en) Texugo 02:37, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
I guess I was thinking about the "costume" part of it, particularly with the photo of the woman. On that note, though, if we were to agree that it is indeed showcasing her ethnic costume, would need a release from her? If these photos undoubtedly need releases, then of course, we can do nothing but delete them. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:33, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
Texugo is right in terms of the policy linked above. The law varies from country to country, and there are some exceptions which also vary. Basically, though, any picture of a person needs a model release. The exceptions cover things like a scene where the people are incidental (photo of Champs Elysee), or some event like a football game or a wedding where you may need permission or even an invitation, but not individual releases. I very much doubt these photos would qualify for the legal exceptions anywhere, and they certainly don't under our policy. (WT-en) Pashley 08:10, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Does not meet the requirements in Project:What is an article?. The user who has re-created this article doesn't seem to be reading his talk page so hopefully this vfd nomination will get his attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Not an article and should rather be a listing. (WT-en) jan 13:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep.A travel guide for people in South India. —The preceding comment was added by 122.164.174.61 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Though, our dear Mr David seems to be an awfully clueless personality that can't really take a hint, so I'm not so sure we'll get his attention. The fact that the YMCA is already listed in Yelagiri by this user himself, the blatant disregard of netiquette, capital letter pimping and whatnot should land this guy a blacklisting soon. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Sertmann (talk • contribs) .
  • An obvious delete, I'd say. Is there anything in it worth moving to Yelagiri first? Or should it just go? (WT-en) Pashley 07:38, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect to Yelagiri. Deleting the page will merely leave a space to recreate it. Merging/redirecting will stop the page being created again and it can be protected, if need be. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:44, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete per Project:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting, as it is an enterprise, not an attraction or a geographical location. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy delete I wish I already had the magic buttons but this spam is at least a bit funny. (WT-en) jan 11:29, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Some discussion is already on its talk page, with the key points being "unmaintainable" and "better suited for Tips for flying".

  • Delete. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 13:48, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Defintely Delete One way flights are today commonplace (either fictive return flights or offered straight away).(WT-en) jan 14:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge into Tips for flying, and give it a better name. One way flights are unfortunately by no means commonplace, and a fictive return is NOT half the price of a return, as clearly stated in the understand section.--(WT-en) Swissbelg 16:14, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. It is an encyclopaedic list. Its potential value to a traveller is minimal, and any information on the cheapest or best way to fly to a destination is best placed in the destination guide. --(WT-en) inas 17:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
does that means all encyclopedic lists should be removed from wikivoyage? i have a few suggestions there...
Its potential value to a traveller is minimal
i think that is a very personal assumption, if someone (yes, like me) does not like planning where to go next on a world trip, this is probably one of the most essential things... i would have saved weeks of searching if i would have found such a list, that's why i wanted to share the little i found out so far.
...and any information on the cheapest or best way to fly to a destination is best placed in the destination guide...
its not about a destination, it's about an airlines policy on one way flights. pleas read the related article before voting ;-P --(WT-en) Swissbelg 20:28, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
IMO, there is very little value in encyclopaedic lists on wikivoyage. I know there are lots of them on wikipedia, but this site, right now doesn't have the resources to maintain them, they fall out of date quickly, or more likely never even reach a stage of accuracy. I'm not convinced even the airlines there now are correct. There are some exceptions, like the UNESCO lists, but this one has considerably narrower appeal.
I would be really surprised if this sort of list helped anyone with their travel planning. Just about every airline will enable you to fly one way to a destination. Airlines on the list aren't necessarily any cheaper, or in any other way better to those off it. You still need to check with the airlines.
I understand it is about the airlines policy. But at the end of the day, it is about the best way to get to a destination, and the person travelling to that destination is going to be reading that destination guide for tips on the best way to get there. I would think that in the New Zealand article, it is well worth pointing out that all airlines flying between Australia and New Zealand sell fares on a one way basis, so you shouldn't lock yourself into one airline for the forward and return trip to get the best price. I think that info may already be there..
Essentially, I think this list has is high maintenance, for low traveller value. --(WT-en) inas 00:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Outcome: Deleted. I admit the consensus here was not the strongest, but the discussion petered out and more importantly, the page itself was never added to by the original user or anyone else -- with only the one edit to create it almost two months ago, it was clearly abandoned. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:44, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Already covered at Beijing/Dongcheng.

Anyone up for a similar fix for Beijing/Ditan‎? - (WT-en) Dguillaime 14:33, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
Apparently not, so deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:44, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Created with a lot of nonsense letters. San Antonio is otherwise un-districtified.

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 04:06, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to San Antonio, so that when the place is districtified the article will already exist. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:07, 3 November 2009 (EST)
    • Now Redirected - Discussion added to talk page. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:59, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Two-line description of an attraction, not linked from anywhere. I suppose it could be redirected, but don't know to where, or if that is worthwhile. (WT-en) Pashley 23:34, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

There's yet another Seattle district article floating around out there? Nothing links to it (hence minimal redirect value) and it contains no useful content, so I would suggest deleting it. The area is already covered by Seattle/Capitol Hill-Central District. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 23:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't think people do searches with "/", so it could probably just be deleted. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
What about Seattle/Laurelhurst, Seattle/Georgetown, Seattle/Ravenna, maybe others? (WT-en) Pashley
That's a good point by Chubby. Personally it would never occur to me to search for any destination with a / in the search string .--(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:11, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Laurelhurst and Ravenna are both going to be merged into larger districts, uh, real soon now. (All those North Seattle articles are such a mess...). Georgetown must have gotten overlooked -- its content has already been transferred, so I'll redirect it now. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 15:25, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Redirect per Project:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting to Seattle, if not to a district. The point of that clause in the deletion policy is to save us the trouble and time of debating whether to delete or redirect for each individual case, so lets stick to it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:18, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Please speedy delete. It's a hotel page and the user tried to delete the vfd. (WT-en) jan 16:14, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Speedy please. It's a Javanese tour operator and owner of the Cemera Indah hotel. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:04, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

An attraction rather than a destination. Text appears to be a copyright violation from or several other places with the same phrasing. (WT-en) Pashley 23:07, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Advertising (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 12:34, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm in awe, the proud old dinosaur spamming a Web 2.0 site, remarkable. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 12:57, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Looks like poorly executed and incoherent spam. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:37, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete or Redirect - Insufficient information to understand the purpose of this page. While I can understand historical re-enactments might be a tourist attraction, the information should appear on the relevant destination guide article. I can also understand that a travel topic linking those destinations might make interesting reading, but I don't think this is the right name for it. If someone can think of a better name and/or come up with a purpose statement for the article then I would be happy for it to stay. - 07:45, 31 October 2009 (EDT) —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Huttite (talk • contribs) .


  • Delete is fine; the subject could make a perfectly good travel topic, but this isn't a very coherent start. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:27, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete The name is quite bad. I think it would need to at least specify a type of reenactment, like Civil War or something, in order to make it a sensible travel topic. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:49, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete Agree with ChubbyWimbus. There may be a case for Historical re-enactments as a travel topic, but the current article name is unsuitable and the content trivial and not worth the effort of renaming. The author does not seem to be interested in developing the article or defending it. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:28, 1 November 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Stub travel topic, apparently uncurated. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:51, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Inappropriate content (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:42, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Speedy deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:59, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Says its a station name in Yokohama. —The preceding comment was added by 130.49.148.119 (talk • contribs) .


So redirect it to Yokohama. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:52, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Merged and redirected before I even saw this. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:25, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. At a push, the content could go into Eastbourne as a listing but it is not particularly close to that town. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:47, 5 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. It probably could be listed somewhere, but this minimal level of content isn't really worth salvaging. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:18, 5 November 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete. Can never be an article. Clearly against policy of no articles for hotels and the like. --(WT-en) inas 17:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
  • Move to the place/destination of the listing, then (possibly) delete the title. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:41, 6 November 2009 (EST)
the destination does not have an article nor could it ever support one. It could possibly go into Eastbourne as I said earlier but that is about 30 miles away.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:32, 6 November 2009 (EST)
Moved to Herstmonceux. The village has a pub and 2 restaurants, castle, science museum, nearby Windmill Hill, all within a couple of miles of the B&B, which makes it makes it a place to sleep too. Sounds like a destination to me, as it passes the sleep test and potentially has at least one listing in each of See, Eat, Drink and Sleep, and probably covers 2-5 square miles of countryside. Not big, but enough, I think, and Hailsham, the nearest town, is a bit far away in my mind. - (WT-en) Huttite 08:29, 6 November 2009 (EST)
I think having Sleep listings in regional articles does not meet the template and is a work-around or concession for not having destination articles for the places where you can sleep. - (WT-en) Huttite 08:29, 6 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete - this is a redirect to a deleted page. Should also be deleted (not an article)
  • speedied (WT-en) Pashley 18:58, 6 November 2009 (EST)

This is a redirect to a non-existant page. There was no useful content at any time. Is there such a place or is this a misspelling of Marseilles

* and Pawtucket (Rhode Island) -- (WT-en) LtPowers 13:11, 7 November 2009 (EST)

These appear to be the same place and much of the content is the same.

  • Merge and rename to Pawtucket unless there is another place of the same name elsewhere. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs)
    • Hi Peter. Don't forget you can do the merge yourself; you don't need to nominate it for deletion. Also, be careful what you name the discussion section; the VFD template links to these sections, using the name of the article by default. Your original section header, which I've corrected, implied that you wanted Pawtucket (Rhode Island) deleted as well, when in actuality, it's the proposed merge target; only list the article under deletion consideration in the section header. Anyway, as long as we're discussing it here, I'm fine with Merge and Rename. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:11, 7 November 2009 (EST)
      • Hi LtPowers, Is Pawtucket(Rhode Island) the correct style of title for the article? I would have thought just Pawtucket would be sufficient unless there is a possibility of ambiguity, which is the reason for my original header, as I was proposing a merge to a new article, and redirect for the existing ones. This is also why I didnt just go ahead and merge, as I wanted a bit of feedback on whether this was the best option. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:03, 8 November 2009 (EST)
wikipedia:Pawtucket indicates that there is but one, so you are right, we should move Pawtucket (Rhode Island) to Pawtucket, and then merge the content from Downtown Pawtucket into Pawtucket. Parentheses are used in our article names only if we are disambiguating. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:02, 8 November 2009 (EST)
I saw this as a proposal to merge into Pawtucket (Rhode Island) and then rename that article to Pawtucket. Merging into a nonexistent article didn't make sense to me. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:12, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Never mind what I say. listen to what I mean :-) Sorry, I expressed myself badly. You both seem to get the intention. Reaname Pawtucket (Rhode Island) to Pawtucket, either before or after merging the Downtown Pawtucket info. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:23, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Content merged from Downtown Pawtucket, Pawtucket(Rhode Island) moved to Pawtucket and links updated. Original articles redirected to Pawtucket. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:31, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I think (only think) this is a hotel. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Delete. Satpada seems to be a place; Yatri Nivas appears to be a hotel there, with hotels of the same name elsewhere in India. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 18:11, 10 November 2009 (EST) Outcome: Deleted. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:44, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Uploaded purely for the sake of telling the reader not to go there (in violation of Project:Avoid negative reviews). I've removed it from the article so it's now orphaned and I don't see any utility in keeping it. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Delete. I don't know if our avoid negative reviews policy goes as far as to avoid listing places which specialise in tourist scams. Regardless, the image is useless. --(WT-en) inas 22:27, 8 November 2009 (EST)
I didn't associate the image with the surrounding text, honestly; perhaps I was mistaken on that point. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:03, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Camden postcard

[edit]

Copyvios of the pictured postcard. The postcard even has a copyright notice right on it! (WT-en) LtPowers 20:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Derivative work of the Camden police department patch design. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Blatant copyvio from http://www.greatercamden.org/ I suspect the uploader doesn't have any grasp of copyright. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:03, 12 November 2009 (EST)

I have concerns about this one. I can't prove it's a copyvio, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the uploader (who also uploaded Topbanner.jpg and Patch.jpg above) didn't take it. TinEye shows one result (although I can't find it on the source website anymore) that is clearly derived from this image, proving that this is not the first place the image has been published. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:09, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Looks like a Google Map to me. I deleted it from Huntingdon Valley. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:41, 13 November 2009 (EST)

This is actually on shared (where I've nominated it for deletion). (WT-en) LtPowers 11:24, 14 November 2009 (EST)
swept to archive, no action since it's on shared. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:48, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Speedied (spambot) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 07:17, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Not an article, but a hotel.

  • Speedy. Not worth keeping the info and going to the trouble of copying it into the relevant article where it is in any case already listed. Very touty and badly written. This is just the sort of business owner who irritates the crap out of me. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:15, 21 November 2009 (EST)
  • Speedy . User advertising his social networking site. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:05, 26 November 2009 (EST)
I moved the content into his userspace. --(WT-en) inas 23:13, 26 November 2009 (EST)
Cool. Contemporaneous with the vfd I think :) Here's one to ponder though (and should probably be discussed elsewhwere): we are having these fairly fundamental discussions about business-driven listings and yet a user can fill his talk page with advertising and back-links with no relevance whatsoever to any travel matters :/ . --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:19, 26 November 2009 (EST)
I suppose you could have guessed that I disagree with people being able to do that as well, but I think the integrity of the main namespace is more of a concern. I'm sure someone who recollects such things can give us a pointer to the relevant discussion. --(WT-en) inas 23:37, 26 November 2009 (EST)
After a lot of searching..... here is a discussion on that very subject: Wikivoyage_talk:User_page_help. And I think the page in question could have been deleted as per Project:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion. Bizarrely (!), I see that Google indexes WT user pages and user talk pages. Therein lies the reason why any savvy person wants a WT user page with a link-back. Search Engine bots should be prevented from indexing and crawling user pages.... another IB tech issue. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:15, 29 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. I'm doing some work to try and bring Arran into shape, and came across this article. This is a tiny hamlet, with no accomodation, shops, atttractions or anything else except some lovely scenery. I think the "Motorcycle Musem" mentioned is someone's wee joke: The 'motorcycle museum', with only one motorcycle, which is British, on display. You look at it through the window as you stand outside. Free. I'm not even sure that Pirnmill really needs a page of its own either. (WT-en) Tarr3n 06:00, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Unlikely search term, but I guess a redirect wouldn't do any harm. Now you mention it, it's probably worth setting up redirect pages for the larger villages on Arran, which users might search for. (WT-en) Tarr3n 09:28, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Always Redirect valid place names. Always. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:04, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Weak Keep or Redirect. No harm in having a article saying there is little to see or do there. Probably more useful to a potential traveller than a redirect to another destination article that contains no information on the destination. Of course if there was destination information in the target of the redirect, then definitely redirect to where the info is. --(WT-en) inas 17:37, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect - No place to sleep but might be a search term. (WT-en) Texugo 19:19, 2 November 2009 (EST)
  • If the redirected city contains information about Penrioch, then redirect. If it does not, then we are not doing anyone a favor by redirecting them to a city where the destination they seek is not mentioned. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:38, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect - It is a place that might be an attraction in the regional destination article, so the information about the scenery can be mentioned under See on the regional destination article page that is the redirection target. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:12, 3 November 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect per Project:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)
  • I have redirected to Pirnmill, which already mentioned Penrioch. —The preceding comment was added by 82.41.225.31 (talk • contribs) Oops. Actually it was me, forgetting to sign. (WT-en) Tarr3n 17:01, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2009&oldid=4924706"