Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2010

Add links
From Wikivoyage

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

Yes, this place merits an article. But the info is a direct lift from Wikipedia, probably by the hotel, which also plugs itself in Wikipedia. (WT-en) Shep 14:04, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

I've removed the plug from the Wikipedia article, although I left most of what the contributor wrote. Given the timestamps, it's reasonable to assume the author made the edits on both wikis, so only the lead section of our article is a copyright violation (because of lack of attribution). We could replace that lead with a Wikivoyage-style lead and template and be okay copyright-wise. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:01, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
It is a real place that "merits an article", so keep. It needs to be either cleaned up or blanked, though. (WT-en) Pashley 20:03, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:56, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

No substantial edits in two years, points to a non-existent district article, would be easy to merge with London, which was suggested on its talk page at the time.

Result: Merge tag added for London. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:09, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. It seems to be a commercial yacht enterprise. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:53, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. This is linked to the section called Cruise Lines and is a page mirrored after the Carnival Conquest page which has not been taken down. (WT-en) Brickell 13:40, 2 September 2010 (EDT) adrienne
  • Delete immediately. This is just a commercial plug. If based on Carnival Conquest then that page should also be deleted. (WT-en) Shep 14:43, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete Commercial page and i added Carnival Conquest for deletion too. (WT-en) jan 15:25, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Cruise ships. In order to address Peter's concerns without allowing spammy adverts I'm proposing that any new articles on cruise ships be redirected until consensus is reached on how to handle cruise ships in general. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Keep. All information is factual-not "touting". The information on cruising is relevant to travelers wishing to "travel by sea". There is no flowery language used. The article gives specifics about the the fleet of 2 cruise ships and links to many destinations within Wikivoyage. There are other cruise ships/ cruise lines with pages on Wikivoyage-as long as they stick to the facts of what traveling aboard their vessel is about - it is clearly relevant to traveling in general. A photo was added to enhance the page also(WT-en) Brickell 16:58, 2 September 2010 (EDT) adrienne

  • This page has been redirected to: "SeaDream I & II". The new page title includes an "&", which appears to make the page unsearchable. It can still be reached through the redirect from "SeaDream Yacht Club", but that's about it. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 01:51, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Cruise ships per Project:What is an article?#Proposed Moratorium. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:06, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Cruise ships per Project:What is an article?#Proposed Moratorium. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:06, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

The provenance of the image on Commons is not at all clear, and there seems to be a thumbnailing issue (probably due to the diacritic in the filename). It was in use on our Rio de Janeiro page, but I've replaced it with a much better daytime shot of the same part of the stadium. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:05, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Unmanageable, subjective, with no clear basis, standard, or rubric, plus it's a Wikipedia-style list to boot. The discussion page already looks like a vfd discussion.

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 10:18, 16 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep - It is manageable, the basis is clear, and it is not more or less subjective than any other "stay safe" entry. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 94.66.217.42 (talk • contribs)
  • Give it some rope - It may or may not turn out to be something useful. I have my doubts, but the main contributor may have the ability to change it to something the rest of us can see as potentially usable, so I would suggest let it develop for a few more weeks. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:46, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete I think it definitely IS more subjective than the "Stay Safe" sections, which give room for complexity. The rubric doesn't even make sense. What does "War Zone" status for health mean? A health rating of 8 means you need an escort?? What's a level 3 "stupid thing" in the homosexuality or religion category? What sort of "something bad" is happening in Peru? Is Brazil really so dangerous that it should be avoided at all cost? The numbers/ratings don't make any sense! You can't trust a single thing in the article, because everything needs clarified further, which requires users to click on the country and go to the "stay safe" section. In my opinion, a watered down "What does it mean?" guide to important topics/issues can do nothing but mislead travelers.(WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:35, 18 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I largely agree with ChubbyWimbus and the discussion on its talk page, with the added problem that assigning a single decimal value to an entire nation is foolish. We can and should mention specific local or regional safety concerns in appropriate detail in the appropriate articles, but assigning a single "crime" value to the entirety of Brazil is as absurd as a continent-wide weather forecast. There's been no evidence that the original contributor can turn it into something useful, only adding more vague and disputable numbers. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 17:32, 18 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I am all for quantifying abstract, subjective notions, and hate to discourage new contributors, but the problem is as CW and Mr Guillaime identify—a single value for an entire and diverse country is neither very meaningful nor helpful for a traveler. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:58, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
  • I don't know. It's pretty handy to have a one-stop reference for whether I should be wary of religious strife at the North Pole, and just what exactly is the current state of gay rights in Space. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:48, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree that in its current form this article is doomed. If the original author is open to some suggestions, an article such as "Worldwide safety concerns" that is sub-divided by specific issues might be of use. For example: military threats (list war zones & areas with active militias or terrorism danger), disease threats (list areas where specific diseases are a concern), crime threats (list of areas with higher-than-average incidence of violent crime), etc. An all-in-one list that simply provides a single number without any description is not meaningful, however. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

There are three pages. St. Andrew's, St. Andrews, and St Andrews. The first two are for the same Canadian city. The last is for the home of golf in Scotland.

  • Merge, rename, and redirect. The home of golf is vastly better known, so it should keep the name. The two Canadian pages should be merged and renamed St Andrews (New Bruswick). I created a disambig page pointing to the current names. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 19:10, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:26, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Jeffreys Bay. There were a number of links to this page from talk pages, so I've redirected to avoid breaking them. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:34, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

There are two pages, Ruaha National Park. and Ruaha National Park. The one with the period in the name is the better page but not named well.

  • Merge and delete. There is no need to redirect a pagename ending in period. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 18:54, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
    • Yes, there is; to maintain the attribution history of the content. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Ruaha National Park deleted and Ruaha National Park. merged into it.. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:44, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Saint-Barthelemy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:57, 9 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Recaş. There was no content that needed merging. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:57, 9 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image. If it was larger it might make sense to incorporate it into an article, but image quality for a thumbnail is low, and thumbnails are often red-flags as potential copyvios so I think it's best to just delete. If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to incorporate it into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. It was uploaded by one of our regular users, but it's unused now and the subject matter doesn't appear to be anything that would be useful in our guides. If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to incorporate it into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. The same location as Image:DKLouisianaC.jpg, which isn't really subject matter for our guides. If anyone wants to keep this please be sure to incorporate it into an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

While listing multiple images in the same VFD is usually to be avoided, all images uploaded by this user are orphaned and look like copyvios:

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of two people sitting on a hill. No model release and no relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a fish, apparently uploaded to promote a fishing charter company. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. A now-orphaned image. It's a map, but at 120x155 pixels it's far too small to be of any possible use, and the license information indicates that it's not CC-SA compatible. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a person with no model release specified. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and the comment on the image page is simply "from website", which makes this suspicious as a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned photograph of a map with no indication provided that the copyright holder of the map has released it for use under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned photograph of a bus schedule with no indication provided that the copyright holder of the schedule has released it for use under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. These are the same image. Orphaned images with recognizable people and no model release. In addition, these appear to have been uploaded in order to promote a specific tour company, something that we usually discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to have been uploaded in order to promote a specific tour company, something that we usually discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a pill bottle. No relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hotel. If someone feels strongly that this should be kept then it needs to be incorporated into an article, otherwise orphaned images are subject to deletion per policy. I would argue strongly that a thumbnail that is currently unused is not a high enough quality image to merit keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of several people standing in front of a bus; no model releases provided, and not particularly relevant to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of several people. It's a low quality thumbnail and there are no model releases provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hotel. It's unused and appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific business, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hotel. It's unused and appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific business, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a bar interior. We typically do not use images of specific businesses unless they are notable for some reason, and this one is not. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a bar/restaurant interior. We typically do not use images of specific businesses unless they are notable for some reason, and this one is not. In addition, there are recognizable people in this photo. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a lighting fixture. The "®" symbol in the image name also red-flags this image as a potential copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned anime image. Violates our "no more than seven girls in animal-themed lingerie in any image" guideline. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

While it's generally best to list images in separate VFD nominations, all images uploaded by this user are orphaned and appear to have been uploaded for promotional purposes, something we typically discourage.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image that is blatantly advertising a hotel, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:50, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image that appears to have been uploaded to promote a hotel, something we typically discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:50, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned copies of the header background image. It looks like someone was trying to see if our image upload works; it does. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:50, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. An orphaned collage of food items served at a specific restaurant. We typically discourage these sorts of promotional images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:50, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. These are two copies (different sizes) of the same image. Both are orphaned, and the image is of someone's pet rat and thus not of any relevance to our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:50, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of several recognizable people posing on bikes. No model releases provided and not particularly relevant to our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:55, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, low-quality thumbnail that appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned promotional poster for a specific hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a person. No model release and no relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a person. No model release and no relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned cartoon image of a woman with a suitcase. Likely copyvio, and there's just something odd about the way her mouth is shaped that makes me uncomfortable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image. The image indicates it was copied from another site but provides no indication that it can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned, low quality image of a hotel interior. Typically we would only use such an image if it illustrated something particular about the city or region, and this image does not. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused thumbnail image of a person's head. No model release and no relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of two people. No model release and no relevance to travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a person posing on some rocks. No model release and no relevance for our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a person on a boat. No model release and no relevance for our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a chair. Violates our "no orphaned images of chairs" policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned images of either a very large bench or a very small woman. In either case this is unused and thus subject to deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. I can't imagine we would want this in an article, but if anyone feels it should be kept it should be de-orphaned. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned head shot. No model release provided and no relevance for our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:52, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. There was no content to merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:44, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Merge and redirect. It appears that there are two pages for the same town: Belgaum and Belguam. I believe that Belgaum is correct spelling (?). --(WT-en) Bill in STL 01:17, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. There was no content to merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:44, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Caransebeş. That's the name the Wikipedia & Romanian Wikivoyage are using. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:26, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Caransebeş. That's the name the Wikipedia & Romanian Wikivoyage are using. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:26, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Roraima (Brazil) moved to Roraima. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:37, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:09, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

  • I presume you meant merge and redirect, since that seems to be exactly the case. – (WT-en) Vidimian 04:50, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
Thanks. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:19, 26 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:22, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete and redirect. This appears to be a page for L'Aquila (province). There is no unique information on this page to merge into the correctly-named article. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:19, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
Yes. Speedy delete please.(WT-en) Shep 09:44, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Just redirect. Policy is to redirect plausible spelling errors. (WT-en) Pashley 06:11, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
    • L'Acquila is a plausible spelling error; is the same true for L'Acquila (province)? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:21, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
      • Either way, it refers to a real geographic location, and those should always be redirected. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:06, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
        • But that's just a rule of thumb. Is it plausible to think someone is going to type the "(province)" disambiguator? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:41, 28 September 2010 (EDT)
          • No, but that's neither the issue nor the reasoning behind the policy. Redirects are cheaper than deletions, as they don't need to go through this process. The default option is redirect. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:46, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:32, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:35, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. There was no content to merge. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:42, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:46, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This is for a lake which is in/near a state park. We don't normally create articles forbodies of water or state parks. If retained, article needs links examined and formatted or removed. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 22:54, 24 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:56, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Typo in file name, Correct name article has been created and in use (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 09:00, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:30, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2010&oldid=1890664"