Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2010

Add links
From Wikivoyage

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

Collages are out-of-scope, especially on :en. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:01, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to be advertising some sort of business. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image scanned from a park guide with no indication it can be re-used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Image says "PD-self" but the image shows a web site address in the bottom right corner, so it's unlikely the uploader actually produced it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of a person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of dirt. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image, commercial tour advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused image of what appears to be a hotel. If anyone thinks this should be kept please indicate what article to add it to, but we typically do not use business images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused Bali tour company advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:29, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Unused Bali tour company advertisement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:29, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to be a promotional image for a specific Bali resort, something we discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to be a promotional image for a specific Bali resort, something we discourage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned flag image. Lack of source information indicates that this could be a copyvio, since most contributors aren't creating flag images from scratch. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. Appears to have been uploaded for promotional purposes, and shows a recognizable person with no model release. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. I've orphaned this image as it appears to have been uploaded for promotional purposes, and the uploader has uploaded other images of questionable origin. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, but of what I'm not sure - a flag of some sort? User uploaded several similar images, none of which look like they are of any use in our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, but of what I'm not sure - a flag of some sort? User uploaded several similar images, none of which look like they are of any use in our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, but of what I'm not sure - a flag of some sort? User uploaded several similar images, none of which look like they are of any use in our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, but of what I'm not sure - a flag of some sort? User uploaded several similar images, none of which look like they are of any use in our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, but of what I'm not sure - a flag of some sort? User uploaded several similar images, none of which look like they are of any use in our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, but of what I'm not sure - a flag of some sort? User uploaded several similar images, none of which look like they are of any use in our guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of an old dude in a frame. Not useful for travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a star. Not useful for travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be. Uploaded by a user who, based on the contribution history, may not have fully understand the CC-SA, so it's best to delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be. Uploaded by a user who, based on the contribution history, may not have fully understand the CC-SA, so it's best to delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be. Uploaded by a user who, based on the contribution history, may not have fully understand the CC-SA, so it's best to delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be. Uploaded by a user who, based on the contribution history, may not have fully understand the CC-SA, so it's best to delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a really nice sunset. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a person with no model release from the same user as the above images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of several recognizable people with no model release from the same user as the above images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a statue. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of several recognizable people with no model release from the same user as the above images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a statue. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release from the same user as the above images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of two recognizable people with no model release from the same user as the above images. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of people in yellow shirts. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a motor taxi. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a plate of food. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a plate of food. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a plate of food. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image, but of what I'm not quite sure. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image, but of what I'm not quite sure. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of some sort of crafts. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image, but of what I'm not quite sure. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image, but of what I'm not quite sure. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a sunset. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of some canoes. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a sunset. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a sunset. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned map image. Looks like a copyvio, and also subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hillside. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a hillside. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a lake. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a field. Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a raft(?). Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned thumbnail image of a river(?). Subject to deletion because it's unused and the user who uploaded it is the same as the above images, and thus a copyvio suspect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

When we deleted the Poland articles (see here: ), we forgot this one.

Delete. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:50, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:35, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Another stub, being attacked as part of our housekeeping effort. This one was originally added by a tour guide running tours from Manaus. Since hijacked by another tour operator also running tours from that city. There are so many bits of water in the vicinity of Manaus that can be reached by tour, the value of keeping this content seems low, and only seems to promote the tour operators going there. The onlly mention of this destination on google is wikivoyage and its followers, which always makes me a bit sus. --(WT-en) inas 23:54, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
The article says it is a "nature reserve". If it is, I assume it is actually part of a larger area with a name that is not just the river? If it does indeed sit in a nature reserve, we could create a page for the reserve and redirect to it. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:05, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:38, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Only a 5.6-mile bike path mostly contained in South Kingston. I cannot imagine an itinerary article for something that takes less than half an hour to traverse.

  • Delete - Or redirect if you insist, though I don't see a need to create a redirect for every little park and path like this. (WT-en) Texugo 03:41, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:40, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Seoul districts

[edit]

The following articles from Seoul districts have been created, but Seoul does not yet have a district structure. I do think it'll need them eventually, but for now I'd suggest to delete them:

  • Delete. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Is there a reason why they can't just be redirected to Seoul? If they are actual districts then the Project:Deletion policy states that a redirect is preferable to deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Yes, redirect is fine, my mistake. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Incidentally, I do hope someone who knows the city can put in some work to fill in more info and get it districtified at some point. The article even states that by some measures it is second in size only to Tokyo, so it sorely needs expansion and districtification. Visiting Seoul using only the guide we have now could really be somewhat of a pain in the ass. (WT-en) Texugo 19:45, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge & redirect. Also, IWBN to document the current ad hoc district structure, as it might perhaps be useful as a starting point for a districtification. Seoul does badly need districting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:25, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge template added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:45, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This template determines number of days in a given month (30 days hath september, ...). Not sure how this would be used on Wikivoyage. It appears this was copied from wikipedia three years ago, but not currently linked to any pages. The template includes a call to "template doc", which is also a wikipedia function, but is undefined on wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 00:29, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. A link to a non-existent template, which is found on Wikipedia, is evidence of a copy-paste job gone awry and abandoned. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:44, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:09, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This template was devised by Evan to provide distinct functionality, but never progressed beyond an exact duplication of Template:Related. It simply puts a page into the "related pages" box on the left of the page. It has not been used on any pages. Removing the template will reduce confusion among our valid templates. The discussion of its creation is on Project:Related articles. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:24, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:09, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This template was devised by Evan to provide distinct functionality, but never progressed beyond an exact duplication of Template:Related. It simply puts a page into the "related pages" box on the left of the page. It has not been used on any pages. Removing the template will reduce confusion among our valid templates. The discussion of its creation is on Project:Related articles. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:24, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:09, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Out of scope. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:26, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:09, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Strange: VFD template on several pages but not listed here

[edit]

There are several pages which appear to be forgotten in a zone of vfd twilight. They have a vfd template but are not listed here for consideration. Either the vfd tag should be removed, or the page should be voted. I'm not recommending for or against, just looking to clean up the garbage.

--(WT-en) Bill in STL 02:25, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

    • Bill, some of us just forget occasionally that we are supposed to go to the VFD page as well as inserting a vfd template! (WT-en) Shep 02:46, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
      • It was after I realized I had forgotten to update both places that I went looking for any others of mine, and found a few extra.(WT-en) Bill in STL 07:55, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
I ran through these, and speedy kept or deleted nearly all of them:
  • User:(WT-en) Kleinzach/Lab ‎ (speedy delete per Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy#Deleting_articles_in_personal_namespaces) speedy deleted.
  • LAN Airlines ‎ (per Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2010#LAN_Airlines) -- speedy deleted.
That leaves us with Interstate 55. My inclination is delete, but I thought it prudent to leave this one open for discussion here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:50, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: See above. Interstate 55 was re-nominated per Peter -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:27, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Unfortunately, this was uploaded locally without any kind of license back in 2004 and the user hasn't logged in since, so we're unlikely to be able to get in touch with him. We'll need to find a new photo of Maracanã...

  • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 13:02, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. We didn't have any licensing pulldown options back in 2004, just a notice on the upload form that all uploads will automatically be considered CC-by-SA 1.0. For a rancorous and unpleasant read, please see wts:Talk:Image_policy#Images_automatically_licensed_as_cc-by-sa-1.0.3F. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:58, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep for the reasons outlined by Peter. All images uploaded by this user were taken with the same type of camera, so it's reasonable to assume the user took the image and uploaded it according to our guidelines at the time. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:12, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:25, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. The template tag automatically creates categories for each tagged article. According to the discussion pages, tags was a feature which Evan proposed but was never completed, so does not provide any real functionality beyond creating undesired categories. So it causes a problem while doing no good.

The template currently appears on only ten pages (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Tag). However, multiple ocurrances on a page cause it to create even more categories. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 20:49, 22 August 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Per Project:Tags these only add metadata to the article, and the more ambitious efforts to make them useful never got started. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 23 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep and deprecate. The discussion on Project:Tags is worth keeping, minimally. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:40, 23 August 2010 (EDT)
Any further comment? At the moment this has not reached the "consensus to keep" threshold, but with only three comments further input would be valuable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
I would be okay with deleting the template and keeping the Project:Tags page and talk page as an archive of something we've tried before. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:56, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
Works for me. Anyone else, or can we wrap this one up? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:48, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete per Ryan (keeping template space clean). This goes for the other similar unused templates currently listed under vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:04, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:36, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. If Template:Tag is deleted then this page will also be obsolete. If consensus is to keep Template:Tag then this page should also be kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. A disclaimerbox has been added indicating that the page describes obsolete functionality per LtPowers concerns. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:36, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an incomplete try to bring over a wikipedia template by anonymous user in 2008. It is looking for an image and two other wikipedia templates which do not exist. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an incomplete try to bring over a wikipedia template by anonymous user in 2008. It is looking for an image which does not exist, and for template:Documentation which same user brought over but is also missing parts. It is used on no pages. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an incomplete try to bring over a wikipedia template in 2008. It is looking for three templates and an image which does not exist, and for template:Documentation. It is used on no pages. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an incomplete try to bring over a wikipedia template in 2008. It is looking for two templates and two images which do not exist, and for template:Documentation. It is used on no pages. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an incomplete try to bring over a wikipedia template in 2008. It is looking for two templates and one image which do not exist, and for template:Documentation. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an incomplete try to bring over a wikipedia template in 2008. It is looking for two templates and one image which do not exist, and for template:Documentation. Not used on any pages. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an incomplete try to bring over a wikipedia template in 2008. It is looking for one template which does not exist. Not used on any pages. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. A template with this name was deleted in 2006; this one created in 2007. Though I suspect that the older template was quite different than the current one. Recreated by an anonymous user. It appears the only pages it appears on were for the older template, not the new one (wikivoyage and wikivoyage talk pages). --(WT-en) Bill in STL 07:00, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. After three years, this template remains unused. It is to place a footnote on a page, which Wikivoyage doesn't do. If someone familiar with wikipedia tries to add a footnote and it works, they may think it is ok when it is not. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 07:14, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This appears to be an attempted copy of a template from wikipedia. It includes one template which does not exist on wikivoyage. It seems unlikely we'd need this template here. (WT-en) Bill in STL 07:23, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates invite mis-use, so I think it's important to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. another stub travel topic going nowhere. Difficult to see how this can every be more than a list of books - there are so many literary paths to follow, many of which may make good itineraries - but is there something separate to literary tourism that we can explore here? If this one gets discovered by the walking tour brigade, they will have a field day. --(WT-en) inas 20:14, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete If we had enough literary guides, an index could be useful, but I don't think we have any and trying to make this page itself an itinerary is impossible. It's just too broad. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:40, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep In a recent discussion, I was warranted that we effectively don't delete any minimally useful travel topics at all, especially if there's an active contributor patrolling new contributors. But we do? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:37, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
There was discussion and a recent policy change on deletion specific to itineraries here . As far as "active contributor patrolling new contributors", I think it's safe to say we've given the creator of this article plenty of time to develop it. It's been over 2 years and the only change that has been made to the article was a capitalization update, so I don't think anyone is being bullied by deleting this. Also, it's extremely broad. If someone created a Little House on the Prairie itinerary, I could envision it becoming something. There are many sites related to the books and author however, "literary travel" as a single topic includes every book ever written, which cannot possibly make a sensible itinerary. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:32, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
(WT-en) DenisYurkin - are you arguing there is some policy reason to keep this? I don't see that in the discussion you pointed to. If you think the article can be usefully expanded, then explain why, and we can keep it. If it can't be usefully expanded it should go. --(WT-en) inas 23:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
Not a policy, but a status-quo described under the link which I read as "we are very conservative in deleting travel topics":
There have been very few travel topics (or other articles) deleted - even the ones that are obviously complete and absolute rubbish we debate endlessly in vfd. If there has been a travel topic deleted that someone expressed an interest in curating, I must have missed it.
I believe that much more books exist that each makes it an interesting undertaking to travel on its key places mentioned. And listing such things is absolutely valid "alternative way of seeing travel". --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:59, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
I'm not sure there is much to say about this in terms of subtopics, like "how to prepare for literary travel", but if we keep this, I think we should give it a little more structure than those random examples that we don't even have articles about. I agree that it's a valid type of travel, but what do we have to put there? Looking through our itineraries, Literary London and maybe Narrow Road to the Deep North would be valid entries. We could probably add Momotaro if folktales count as literary travel... What do we think we want from this article? Where do you see it going? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:15, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
Even merely listing books which are worth creating itineraries would be a value-adding article. Per se it can give an idea on where to go next--there is some percentage of trips that start as a result of reading a good book with action taking place in the region (i.e. sometimes a book come first, and a region comes from that, not only vice versa). And of course it should link to all existing literary-centric itineraries like those you mentioned. Do we really need general sections like "how to prepare" for the article to become worth keeping? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:37, 5 July 2010 (EDT)
On the trail of Marco Polo is based on a book. Are there others? I'd imagine Dracula is a tourist draw in Transylvania. (WT-en) Pashley 08:31, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
There is currently no consensus to keep this article. Any further comment would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:30, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Weak keep. We seem to have come to a decision to not apply the "outline for a year" criteria to travel topics (although I'm not exactly sure why—maybe we should revisit this). This article has not developed despite having been around for quite some time, and it doesn't seem that anyone has a clear idea of how it could in a productive manner. I'd lean delete, but I cannot see a deletion rationale per current policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:34, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
I've continued the discussion at Project:Deletion policy#Travel_topics. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:03, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Template:Outlinetopic has been added indicating that if it isn't edited within one year then it will be deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:11, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Redirect. Is this an attraction or a region? I think it is essentially an attraction, and should redirected. However, it may be a region of islands, in which case we should probably rename it to Lake Titicaca Islands to avoid possible confusion. I understand this is a bit of an unorthodox vfd, but I know there are views on what to do with these sorts of articles, so I think this makes a better place than the article talk page. --(WT-en) inas 21:35, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

IMO, it's a valid region article, although the article needs the rest of the section headers. Since there is no clear deletion rationale here, I don't think a vfd is appropriate. The vfd page is a magnet for controversy & barn burners, as it is the only page where we do not follow Project:Consensus strictly. Accordingly, I think this discussion would be better suited to the article's talk page. If we can't figure out what to do with bodies of water as regions, that's something that will need to be resolved via policy discussion and consensus before we can safely use the vfd process. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:21, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

There seems to be enough islands in the Lake to make it a reasonable region article. I prefer the current title over Lake Titicaca Islands, but if it needs to be moved, it's not a big deal. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:02, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
We have a clear policy on bodies of water. The first line of our policy states We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water. This is a destination guide about a body of water. I understand this issue is contentions, but it really is down to anyone who thinks we should have destination guides about bodies of water, to build the consensus to change it. There is a clear deletion rationale for an article about a body of water, like this one is. However, in line with our deletion policy, articles about major attractions should be redirected.
I accept that a valid region guide may one day be created for this region, and I wouldn't object to that. Right now we are dealing with an article that is not a region, but rather about an attraction, and the attraction information should be moved, and the article redirected. --(WT-en) inas 19:35, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
And following that line is Some land regions are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about those bodies of water, and this style guideline does not apply to them. For example, the Lake Tahoe region in California is named after the lake there, but it is about the towns, national parks, and ski resorts that ring the lake. We should have a guide to Lake Titicaca, and it should of course focus on the towns and relevant islands, rather than the water itself. The fact that the article is currently a stub is not a deletion rationale, and how to fix it up is a question for the talk page. A merge & redirect doesn't make sense—would you copy the information about the "attraction" to each and every town on the lake?
There is contention about the bodies of water policy, what it means, and how to apply it, and the vfd page is a bad place to hash it out. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:34, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
I've no intention of arguing the ins and outs of the bodies of water policy here.
This article is about an attraction, and like any other attraction it should be merged and redirected. We do this for every other attraction - even ones which can be reached from several places. The author of the text surely had no intention of creating an article about a region. If you want to make this article about something else, a region, or whatever - then by all means go ahead, however in general I would argue for a more methodological approach to regioning, rather than taking attraction articles and applying a region template to them. --(WT-en) inas 23:50, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
There are also a number of towns such as Puno and Copacabana in the lake region. The lake spans the border of Bolivia and Peru, half in each. This seems to be analogous to the Great Lakes region, which has a regional article, though the Great Lakes has been expanded beyond a stub. The Lake Titicaca region seems to have three natural subregions: Islands, Bolivian Coast, and Peruvian Coast. Each of those subregions breaks down into multiple towns or islands, and has things to see and do. (WT-en) Bill in STL 18:19, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
Keep, but turn it into a region article. (WT-en) Pashley 08:32, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
Current consensus seems to be to keep this article as a region. Any further comment? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Converted to a region article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:36, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Perhaps an attempt with good will but this is a thoroughly useless "map". Plus, it has no source or license info other than a claim that it's "Donated by City Counsil (sic)". – (WT-en) Vidimian 12:52, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
  • I'm reluctant to delete something that's in active use, but then again, maybe it would inspire someone to make a better map. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:13, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
  • Any further comment? While a poor map is generally better than no map, this is of such poor quality that I'd agree with Vidimian it isn't worth keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:42, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's of quite little value, but without a clear reason to suspect that it was uploaded in violation of our image policy, I don't see a deletion rationale per policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:38, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:40, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This template was devised by Evan to provide distinct functionality, but never progressed beyond an exact duplication of Template:Related. It simply puts a page into the "related pages" box on the left of the page. It was placed on two pages for testing, but could be replaced with Related on those pages. Removing the template will reduce confusion among our valid templates. The discussion of its creation is on Project:Related articles. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 05:24, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Template:Related. There is semantic value in using this template over Template:Related even if the functionality is the same. This applies to the other two templates as well. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:24, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. If it's unused I think it's best to keep the template namespace clean. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
Any further comment? At the moment this has not reached the "consensus to keep" threshold, but with only three comments further input would be valuable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:46, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

Possibly justified, but this is just a rant, (WT-en) Shep 15:31, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete I would suggest a merge (after rewording) into the Nigeria article in the "Get out" section as a more general (not Canada-specific) warning for Nigerians not traveling to the U.S. to avoid it altogether, but I don't think the "Get out" section is supposed to be there. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:48, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

Only the first sentence about location is valid useful information. The rest is a very vague description of one unnamed company's package tour.

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

  • DELETE. Event was finished two years ago. The official tournament website is no longer active. (WT-en) Bill in STL 21:32, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Hmm. There's a few more of these around (eg. Expo 2005). Instead of deleting them outright, I'd prefer to maybe tag them with "archive" and protect them...? If nothing else, they're useful templates for future events. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:14, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep, for posterity if nothing else. I'm okay with tagging them as historical. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:00, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete I admit there is some nostalgia with those but the most of the article deals with ticket prices, etc. The information on general sights and transportation is still available in the regular regional articles. I don't see any use for a traveler nowadays?! --(WT-en) Sebindi 10:47, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. I like Jani's idea of keeping these around with an "archive" tag, similar to what we do with the Project:Joke articles. They may be useful as templates, and it seems a shame to throw away articles that people put a lot of work into. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep per Jani. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:47, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep but label them. I started this one. My reason to delete was that old event articles which appear to be current makes the site look outdated. The list of article with old dates in name include: Expo 2005, Euro 2008, Rugby World Cup 2007, Vancouver 2010, World Cup 2006, World Cup 2010. We should do the same thing with all of them, whatever the decision. The 2008 Olympics has already been merged to Beijing. The Expo 2005 has a nice disclaimer box showing we really know it is not a future event, even if the text says "event will open ..." Adding a similar box to all these would mark them as historic articles if people run into them. Or a generic template would make them easy to maintain. Future articles for same treatment include Expo 2010 (after Oct 31), London 2012 in a couple of years.(WT-en) Bill in STL 21:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
Please see Wikivoyage_talk:Template_index#Proposed "Completed events" template proposal for template to handle this. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 04:58, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:46, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Redirect?. This article text simply says that it should not exist. Redirect to Persian phrasebook, which already includes Afghanistan. (WT-en) Bill in STL 06:10, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Dari phrasebook. (WT-en) Pashley 06:19, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. "Afghanistani" isn't a word. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:10, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
    • Right. I'm therefore happy to see it deleted. (WT-en) Pashley 09:42, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Dari phrasebook. Afghanistani is the clumsy way of referring to something that is of or pertaining to the nation but not necessarily Pashtuns or Pashto. But even if it were just a misspelling, redirecting would still be preferable, albeit trivial. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:35, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This page is a relic from the early days of Wikivoyage that seems to have outlived its usefulness, and it looks unlikely that it will become anything more than a mass of external links if we keep it around. At this point Wikivoyage has enough content that we typically prefer first-hand knowledge, so referring people to the NY Times, Open Directory, or someone's personal travel blog to mine content seems both unnecessary and unhelpful. If people do want to keep this page then some very clear guidelines would need to be set up to prevent it from simply becoming a dumping ground for any travel-related link that someone wants to promote. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:03, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'm all for deleting collections of external links, as such pages are pretty clearly in conflict with our goal of not being a web directory. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:21, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Abstain. In my someday-maybe list, I have a (WT-en) Researcher Toolbox article which is somewhat related. However, it has next to nothing to do with keeping the content of the above article. Still however, I believe our current practice is that destination-specific "sources to research" should be sticked to Talk: page of a respective destination (at least I always did that way). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. Pick up a travel guide and browse through it, even in the most thorough guides you'll find references to websites or other books. What harm is this doing? Read the non-goal again:
"Wikivoyage articles can and should have links to external resources about destinations, itineraries, travel-oriented companies, and other travel-related Web sites. However, it's not a goal to collect all links about any destination. External links should support and complement the content of articles; they're not a goal in and of themselves."
This doesn't expressly prohibit external links for a destination, just that they're not a goal to achieve. This collection of links, especially with some expansion, can be a useful reference for travel research and those of us just browsing the web to satisfy some wanderlust. I even, at one point, tried to start such a collection of resources on my own page here which I'll finish when I have time. If a collection like this was on a destination page, then I'd agree with deleting. On it's own, however, it can be very useful and doesn't, in my opinion, distract us from our goals. I do agree that there needs to be some guidelines set up specifically for this page, but that shouldn't be too hard. (WT-en) AHeneen 02:19, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
Since this nomination hasn't passed the "consensus to keep" threshold (2 delete, one abstain, one keep), if there is strong feeling that it should be kept I'd suggest proposing some guidelines on Project:Contributor research links and seeing if there is consensus to be reached about what constitutes a "contributor research link". As it is now the page is of little use, and I remain in favor of deleting it to avoid attracting spammy contributions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:39, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
Any further comment? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
One last call for comment, otherwise I think this topic is headed for deletion... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete - this is a river across several regions. Some of the info might fit in other articles, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 01:47, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge into Paraguay, since the information is largely Paraguay-specific. Modes of transport and destinations in particular should be retained. Alternatively: Rewrite into an Along the Paraguay River page in the style of Along the Yangtze River. --190.128.166.18 02:07, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
  • Maybe we could turn it into an itinerary. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:34, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
  • Any further comment? My inclination is to add a merge tag to the article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:48, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep, but turn into an itinerary, as it clearly falls afoul of our content organization policy on bodies of water. I don't see any way that this information could be usefully merged into a country article. If it never develops, then we could delete it under the "outline for a year" criterion for itineraries. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Converted to an itinerary. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:15, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Not a travel topic in that no attempt is made to relate the discussion to locations where the musicians can be heard. Does not belong here. (WT-en) Shep 04:24, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Speedy deleted, certainly not an article. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 00:06, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Pure advertising. (WT-en) Shep 04:28, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Speedy deleted, same as above (half of the same content too). — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 00:06, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Touting. Are we going to have pages for every tour company? (WT-en) Shep 04:32, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Moved to Wikivoyage Shared.

  • Delete. Orphaned image, photo is of a person taking a picture, which isn't of any use for our travel guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, collage featuring recognizable people with no model release provided, and it looks promotional in nature. Duplicate of Image:CHEF WOLF PEQU.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, collage featuring recognizable people with no model release provided, and it looks promotional in nature. Duplicate of Image:CHEF WOLF.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, recognizable person holding a fish with no model release provided. Duplicate of Image:MAMIRAUA.JPG. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, recognizable person holding a fish with no model release provided. Duplicate of Image:MAMIRAUA.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of poor quality. If anyone feels that this should be kept please indicate what article to incorporate it into, although given the quality I'd suggest that this isn't worth keeping. Duplicate of Image:MAMAURI.JPG. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of poor quality. If anyone feels that this should be kept please indicate what article to incorporate it into, although given the quality I'd suggest that this isn't worth keeping. Duplicate of Image:MAMAURI.jpg. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned graphic with no indication provided of its source, making it a suspect copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a van. If anyone thinks that this should be kept please indicate what article to incorporate it into, although I'd argue strongly that this image is not of high enough quality to warrant inclusion in any of our articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, and the borders and lack of license info make this a suspect copyvio. If anyone thinks that it should be kept please indicate what article to incorporate it into. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. While it is labeled as "PD-self", this is a graphic and it seems unlikely that the uploader actually created it him/herself, so this is suspicious as a copyvio. If anyone thinks that it should be kept please indicate what article to incorporate it into. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. Map with no license info provided, making this suspicious as a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a rental house. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. Duplicate of Image:Moyamanzi.JPG. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a rental house. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. Duplicate of Image:DSC 0069.JPG. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a limousine business. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a limousine business. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a limousine business. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a limousine business. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable child with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a hotel interior. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a beach hotel. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. Duplicate of Image:DSC01041edt.JPG. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a beach hotel interior. We typically discourage promotional images of this sort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Moved here from a separate nomination in order to allow commenting on this article individually
  • My inclination is delete, but I thought it prudent to leave this one open for discussion here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:50, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. We've got a few interstate articles, but this is completely empty so it is probably best to treat it as a stub itinerary and delete it due to lack of attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:29, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete - No one says "I'm going to travel I-55". (WT-en) Texugo 10:18, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:39, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

I interpret the major attraction, being a high hurdle to get over, so we avoid creating redirects for every zoo and garden on the globe. How do we decide? --(WT-en) inas 19:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I disagree; redirects are cheap, so I don't see the hurdle as very significant. We should avoid creating redirects willy-nilly in any case, but as long as the page exists, and someone took the time to write what's really a decent article on the place, I see little harm in redirecting (especially after a merge, for attribution purposes if nothing else). We should be cautious about minor commercial attractions, of course. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:01, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
My concern isn't so much with the redirect, which as you say is cheap, but rather with redirecting a minor commercial attraction. I don't doubt its commercial - it isn't a santuary or a national park, it is a zoo. As to whether it qualifies as major, not sure, but the google hits are a couple of orders of magnitude below any other zoo I could think of. I certainly see the major attraction hurdle high enough that most commercial attractions wouldn't qualify for redirects, only exceptional or widely known ones. --(WT-en) inas 02:57, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
Well, it's what, 8 square kilometers? More than twice the size of Central Park. =) I would say it's certainly one of the major attractions in or around Goa, commercial or not. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:40, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:20, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
  • This nomination is three months old, but in trying to resolve it I'm unsure what people want it merged with - Goa? Any clarification would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:33, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep. I hadn't looked at this before, but what is the deletion rationale here? Simply asserting it is an "attraction"? Or asserting that it is a "zoo" not a "park"? The article states that you can sleep here, there is a restaurant, and it's actually a well developed Other Destination article of clear value to the traveler. If people think this information would be more useful if merged with another article, that's a question of content organization that would belong on the talk page, not vfd, but it anyway does not appear that anyone has a concrete idea of how to improve the organization. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:28, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure; maybe I didn't look closely enough at the article to see that there were accommodations there. I'm fine with keeping; maybe I just wanted to make sure it wasn't deleted without a redirect. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:03, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
  • So is this a "keep" now? My sense of the discussion is that "keep" is the correct resolution, but if anyone feels differently please comment. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:09, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:43, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. I don't see the usefulness of this article or it going anywhere. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:48, 27 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete Pages for Airlines are not really useful and i think it is also quite a marketing tool. I would like to discourage that as we already have to much ads in. (WT-en) jan 09:34, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete Apart from anything else, the name is wrong. Zimbabwe gets a capital Z. The quality of the contents matches the quality of the title too. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:48, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This category is out of policy. The existence of the category page invites misuse. Removing the category page at least leaves the categories as red-links when used. (WT-en) Bill in STL 13:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep, I like it. =) Our Category policy is in the process of being addressed, if slowly, and I think this might be one that eventually is sanctioned by the updated policy. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:40, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Keep (for now). Let's discuss this one as it may fit nicely in the new category structure being developed. If consensus is to not use it then it can be removed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:52, 10 September 2010 (EDT)
→ Talk:List of phrasebooks#Phrasebook category. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:06, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:33, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete content and redirect. The talk page indicates that this is a Hindi phrasebook. I looked at a few entries and they appear to be included on the Hindi page, but I don't know the language to validate the claim. It appears this is the name of a town, not a language. (WT-en) Bill in STL 20:38, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Sarahan (Rarang looks to be an obscure location next door). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:16, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Sarahan. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:44, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. This page appears to have been copied from iguide.travel site , complete even to the "you are here:home". No indication the anonymous user has the rights to it. Even without the concern about rights, without a description of how to pronounce or use these characters, just the alphabet does not seem useful for the traveller. The page was added about seven weeks ago, and user has not made any edits to wikivoyage since that date, so I don't think he's coming back to turn this into something legal. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 02:43, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
    • iguide gets their information from us, not the other way around. (Although I note they still claim materials are available under CC by-sa 1.0 instead of 3.0.) This content very well may have come from somewhere, and it very well may be useless to us, but it's iguide got it from us. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:11, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect to Punjabi phrasebook. Pronunciation information is necessary, but no need to delete simply because it is incomplete, I'd say. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:14, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Punjabi phrasebook. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:46, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Without a description of how to pronounce or use these characters, just the alphabet does not seem useful for the traveller. It appears that these tables were copied from wikipedia (same colors, sequence, headers). The page was added about seven weeks ago, and user has not made any edits to wikivoyage since that date, so I don't think he's coming back to turn this into something more. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 02:43, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect to Punjabi phrasebook. Pronunciation information is necessary, but no need to delete simply because it is incomplete, I'd say. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:14, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Punjabi phrasebook. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:46, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete. Is it time to remove this logo, which is defined as temporary? It is on ten city pages. Policy says "These templates should be deleted and removed from here once the event has passed." --(WT-en) Bill in STL 00:49, 26 August 2010 (EDT)
    • In general, yes, although I'd suggest keeping at least one around to serve as an example for future events. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:17, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:51, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/September_2010&oldid=1890766"