Discussion is underway about a potential site-wide License upgrade

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel

(Redirected from Votes for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.

See also:

[edit] Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following: 

===[[Chicken]]===
* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion. If you are unsure, bring up the issue on the talk page.
  2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
  3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.
  4. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel... many images are located on Wikitravel Shared, in which case they should be nominated for deletion over there instead.

[edit] Commenting

All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is: 

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

[edit] Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article. However, if the image is being deleted because it has been moved to the shared repository with the same name, do not remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the shared repository.

[edit] Archiving

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

[edit] January 2009

[edit] North Sea

  • Redirect (but where?). The current article is spam and I was going to speedy delete it per Wikitravel:Bodies of water, but there are five articles that link to it, so I suspect a redirect would be more useful since some editors seem to think it is a valid article. I'm stuck on where to redirect to, however - Europe? Scandinavia? British Isles? -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:09, 31 January 2009 (EST)
    • My personal opinion is that bodies of water should be disambiguation pages listing major destinations surrounding them. In some cases, such as Great Lakes, we can almost treat it like a region. LtPowers 16:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)
    • The current disambiguation page seems like a good compromise. I wouldn't recommend that all bodies of water get disambiguation pages, but the fact that this one is frequently wiki-linked seems to indicate that some sort of page is called for. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Strong Delete. Keeping bodies of water is a slippery slope. There is no consensus on how to redirect them. No clear way to disambiguate them. Do we redirect to places that offer cruises, or to islands in them, We should only consider keeping this after a serious rework of our bodies of water policy, so we know where we are going and what we want these articles for. Great Lakes is not an exception to the existing rule, as it is a name of the region surrouding the bodies of water already. Redirecting the North Sea to the a high level or region doesn't help the traveler. --Inas 18:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. What Inas said. Current policy doesn't allow anything else. Texugo 21:10, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Wikitravel:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting: "The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete. Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected, but articles about restaurants, bars, hotels, and other such commercial establishments should be deleted rather than redirected, in order to curb touting.". -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
I think the point here is "where would you even redirect it?" The North Sea borders four top-level European regions. Is it really even useful to redirect this to Europe as whole? Texugo 21:52, 1 February 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to Europe#Regions. Perhaps that will one day help some confused person. And perhaps it might dissuade that confused person from creating the article again. It's a geographical location, so redirecting should be fine. --Peter Talk 01:14, 2 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep as a disambiguation page. It should state that our policy is to not write articles about bodies of water but about the land instead and they could be looking for any of the countries in Europe#Regions that border onto the North Sea. This should discourage people writing about the North Sea itself. If people do then the page could be protected. - Huttite 03:57, 2 February 2009 (EST)
OK - I have added a disamiguation style page - rough first cut just see how it might fly - I think it has potential, even if it is just lots of links. It could tell someone if you can get into a country via a North Sea port, for example. This is something you would not know unless you knew which article to read. The North Sea article now tells you what are the likely candidates for information. Perhaps this is a standard to adopt for all major bodies of water (Oceans and Seas) that do not currently exist. - Huttite 09:13, 2 February 2009 (EST)
IMO. It is of no value to the traveller. It hinders them. They can go to each of those countries, and find nothing about the North Sea. They would be much better off with the normal wiki search function, which would at least find articles that reference the north sea, rather than this disambig which points them multiple high level articles which don't. --Inas 17:53, 2 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep per Huttite. LtPowers 08:37, 2 February 2009 (EST)
I think this is a good solution, and would work for other oceans for which a redirect simply would not work. I would, however, recommend disambiguating by continental section, rather than country (e.g., Scandinavia, Beneluxe, British & Irish Isles, etc.), because someone searching for a region as broad as the North Sea is looking for something broader than an individual country. Moreover, if we were to use this as a precedent for other oceans, it would be silly to have a Pacific Ocean disambiguation for every nation and territory that touches it. To Ian's point about the search function—travelers can still use the search function, rather than the "go" function if they choose to, so I think that shouldn't be too much of a concern. --Peter Talk 18:09, 2 February 2009 (EST)
My point was if a disambig adds more value than the standard search, then lets do it. Lets point people at what they are looking for. But if the disambig detracts value from the search, and points them away from any reference to what they are looking for, we have to wonder why we are doing it. We are just wasting the travelers time. Lets face it, a person doing a search for the north sea, isn't going to be very far advanced once redirected to Europe#Regions or similar are they? They still have to search for what they are looking for. Unless all they were looking for was a geography lesson, and that isn't really what we are here for. --Inas 18:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)
  • I suggest we put this on hold and hold a discussion about creating new policy at Wikitravel talk:Bodies of water. If we were to start allowing disambiguation pages for bodies of water, I would really want to work out a system first-- criteria for when to disambiguate a body of water (versus when to redirect it, etc), criteria for what types of articles should be pointed to, how to deal with each type: rivers, bays, etc. I also think that if we were to start doing this, it would have some potential implications for other region-spanning features such as mountain ranges, deserts, and forests. That said, maybe even Wikitravel talk:Bodies of water is not an adequate place for this discussion, but the point is: This is a precedent-setting matter, and the Votes for deletion page is not really the place to pave new policies. Texugo 19:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] February 2009

[edit] Bristol Channel

  • I cannot decide whether to Delete or Disambiguate this body of water. I have proposed it here because the policy says we don't normally create such articles (but sometimes we do!) So I want to get a feel for where the tide of opinion is running on this article and perhaps provoke discussion about these sorts of articles generally. Perhaps the policy is too indecisive. - Huttite 11:14, 14 February 2009 (EST)
  • Weak don't redirect I still maintain that the purpose of a disambiguation or redirection is to point somebody in the direction of where they might find the information they are looking for. If we can define what the user is looking for, and we have that information located somewhere else, then a redirect or a disambiguation makes perfect sense, and we should just do it as a matter of course. When either of these factors is missing - when it isn't at all clear what the user is looking for, or that information isn't located in a few fixed places in the guide, we are not helping anyone with a redirect or disambiguation. Redirecting to a higher level region isn't useful if it makes no mention of the search term, as the user is still left with nowhere to go. We are better off just letting it fall back to the default search, where are least the user will be presented with a listing of all articles that match their search, in relevance order. In this case the text of this article it seems to more resemble a travel topic for navigating the waterway. Again, we could end up with a article for how to navigate most navigable waterways, and that may be a valuable thing, but at the moment that fits more within our travel topic hierarchy then it does within our destination hierarchy. --Inas 18:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Hold We apparently really need to root out a policy on this, since alot of us are starting to second guess the current one. (see discussion for North Sea above). --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

[edit] Image:Double sun Sunset icebergs at Baffin Bay.jpg

There is no indication that the uploader took this photo, and the site it came from does not indicate that it is CC-SA licensed. Additionally, images should be uploaded to shared, not English Wikitravel, as indicated by the giant red box on the upload page.

  • DeleteKeep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:35, 25 February 2009 (EST) UPDATE: the situation was resolved, so looks like the image is good to keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep I am Mila Zinkova and I took this photo, but honestly I do not really care what you do with this--Mila 11:37, 25 February 2009 (EST)
    • Hi, Mila. You've uploaded some really nice pictures! Since you have previously published these photos on the web, it can be hard to tell sometimes whether something was just swiped without permission or not. =) It might help if you were to put a notice on your web page where the photos are found that says "these images are licensed CC-by-sa 3.0" with a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -- or even just a note that says "I am User:Ushlavtuman on Wikitravel". Either one of those would prevent similar discussions in the future. =) Thanks for your contributions. LtPowers 18:52, 25 February 2009 (EST)
    Thank you.--Mila 10:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. Mila is engaged in the discussion, and any further issues can be resolved by directly. --Inas 18:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • Move to shared - Texugo 00:16, 27 February 2009 (EST)
  • Keep/Moved to shared I'm not doing it, but if someone else wants too... :) --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

[edit] March 2009

[edit] Las Piedras

Delete this page was started by an ananymous user in spanish. Then all content was remowed. ViMy 17:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)

  • Keep; it is a real place, or rather several according to Wikipedia [1]. Probably needs to be a disambig page here too. Pashley 20:00, 28 February 2009 (EST)
  • Yes I know. There is one in Puerto Rico, and two in South America. But the question are, will we get articles for this places? I searched spanish Wikitravel, and found no articles. But of course a Disambig-page is at least a start... ViMy 14:00, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep; Even a disambiguation page is more useful than the current article. The fact that someone started it suggests we might get articles, sometime in the future. Even if we don't, a gap has at least been identified. - Huttite 07:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Nordkapp, North Cape and Magerøya

Delete or Merge. Nordkapp is the name of the municipality in witch North Cape is. Nordkapp is also the norwegian name for North Cape. North Cape is an atraction and as so should not have it's own article in Wikitravel. I think this articles could be merged with Honningsvåg, witch is a small town just south of North Cape. The Magerøya-article might just be deleted, not sure if this is a likely search. ViMy 13:52, 2 March 2009 (EST)

  • Nordkapp is a destination in it's own right, and a pretty popular one too, so i don't think we should merge with Honingsvåg. Never heard the term Magerøya before, but someone obviously has so it can't really hurt just to Merge all of them. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 13:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
  • I know... It's known all over Europe as the northenmost point of the continent. Shuld we merge all into North Cape? Another thing you can't sleep at North Cape... But in Honningsvåg or some of the vilages south of the cape. But of course North Cape is the name everyone know. ViMy 14:18, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect all to Nordkapp, which is (I think) the most common name. "North Cape" is ambiguous, but there's only one Nordkapp. Jpatokal 23:30, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Keep Separate - To me it sounds like Nordkapp is a destination on the island of Magerøya and you could merge those two if there was on other places on the island. However, North Cape is a different case entirely as it is the name of a tourist destination/attraction in Northland, on the North Island of New Zealand - which means that North Cape should be a disambiguation page. - Huttite 02:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
    • AFAIK there's nothing at all on Magerøya aside from Nordkapp. Jpatokal 02:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Nordkapp is a destination on Magerøya. But you can't sleep there but in Honningsvåg. The Island is not so big. So I think everything could be keept in one article. Should North Cape be a disambig-page? ViMy 07:11, 7 March 2009 (EST)
hmmmm, this one is tricky, my take on this would be to redirect Magerøya as a region to Nordkapp, as that is the more likely search term, and then make Honningvåg and Nordkapp destinations in Finnmark rather than on Magerøya. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 13:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Sounds OK to me. But I'm not sure if we should have two seperate articles for Nordkapp and Honningsvåg. ViMy 10:36, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Hmm you might be right, so... which one to choose? since you're the Norwegian, I'm willing to take your advice :) --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:27, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
Technicaly Honningsvåg is the town, and Nordkapp an atraction outside of the town. But Nordkapp is a internationaly recognized destination, so I think we should choose this. The reason why I'm sceptical to two articles, is that I think we could got one describing the atraction and another one describing where to sleep.
I'd say keep Magerøya, include the Nordkapp and Honningsvåg information in that article and make both of those redirects to it. It seems to me the island, rather than the town, is the destination.
North Cape is a separate problem, probably needs to be a disambig page. Pashley 05:43, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Ria formosa

Copyvio from [2], no content otherwise. Redirection to Algarve is another option. - Dguillaime 20:25, 6 March 2009 (EST)

  • Keep - Copyright Violation is not sufficient reason to delete a page. Tag it as a copyright violation and/or redirect to the page where the attraction is best listed if it cannot become an article. Huttite 09:29, 7 March 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. We can't keep copyright-violating text in the history of an article. Better to delete it outright, and if a redirect is desired, one can be created afterward. LtPowers 15:49, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Policy discussion moved to Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy#Copyvios in article history
  • Wipe and redirect to Algarve, unless someone wants to argue it deserve an article of its own. There are plenty of instances where copyvio text has been inserted into an existing article along with our original content, and it's been dealt with by deleting the copyvio text. The history is there to show we fulfilled our obligations. Seriously, think through the consequences here. As a vandal, I could nuke Paris by dropping copyvio text into the second paragraph. Then Wikitravel would have to delete the entire history of the article to get rid of that copyvio. After it was recreated, the entire valid revision history (and contributors) would be lost. Nose, spite, face, etc. On the other hand, we would need the contributor to explicitly say he or she had rights to re-license that text. We absolutely should not assume they did. Gorilla Jones 13:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Policy discussion moved to Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy#Copyvios in article history
  • Keep, either as an article or redirect if needed. Copyright text and images are removed, we've never wiped history before for that. I also removed a line that was confusing in the deletion policy – cacahuate talk 16:09, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Redirect to either Ria Formosa or Algarve—with very limited knowledge, I would recommend the latter. --Peter Talk 22:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete! The title is wrong, should be Rio Formosa. All of the text is a copyvio. Nuke it. Pashley 09:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
    • Spelling mistakes should be redirected not deleted. - Huttite 05:02, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] European route E45

Tagged as an itinerary but written (scantily) like a Wikipedia article about only the Danish portion of the road. As we don't write articles about highways except for special cases like the Dalton Highway and Route 66, I'm going to have to vote to

  • Delete - Texugo 07:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, this article could be part of the Routes Expedition. But it has to be rewritten, and expanded to cover it's entire length. As it is now it is more or less a WP article. ViMy 08:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
The articles-about-random-highways aspect of that expedition has not been ratified by any kind of consensus and should not be pursued until the community deems it necessary. Articles about highways are, by current policy, limited to special cases only. Texugo 09:03, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Is this a special case, then? Finland to Italy sounds like an interesting trip. Do people actually set out to make that journey? If so, then an article on the whole route would be a valid itinerary. Pashley 11:24, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete All the time, but they don't necessarily follow that route. Outside Scandinavia and Benelux where they are well integrated in the national system, European routes are quite arbitrary, and poorly signposted. The situation is improving though, but not to a point where it merits articles outside the two regions above. E39 is a much better example of an itinerary that could potentially be useful. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:49, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Then it would be OK make an article about E6, witch runs Trelleborg-Kirkenes. At least in Norway E6 is rather "famous". Not saying that I will make such an article... ViMy 10:43, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Jeita

This seems to be no real place. ViMy 08:27, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

  • Seems like it is a destination. There are some grottos in Lebanon called Jeita. ViMy 19:12, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
An attraction, not an article. What is the nearest city? Texugo 19:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
We don't have a lot of Lebanese cities, but it's 15 kilometres outside Beirut, so I guess that can count as suburbs. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:07, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep - It could be a park article, and I think that 15km makes it a sufficiently remote attraction that it warrants its own article. Otherwise a disproportionately large amount of text might be devoted to it somewhere else. Better it is contained in the current article in that case. It is not doing any harm where it is. Anyway, policy is to merge and redirect, not delete, this sort of attraction. - Huttite 05:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
  • According to WP, the entrance to this grottos is in the town of Jeita. And the grottos is a major atraction. A city article? ViMy 09:33, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] April 2009

[edit] Kloster Weltenburg

I don't know anything about the location, but it is listed as a single monastery, which I don't believe Wikitravel covers. There is no city page for the city that it is listed as being in/near. ChubbyWimbus 09:17, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Um. We just need to find somewhere to put the content. --Inas 02:18, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Keep. Huh? Been There. Written it :) It is a nice place and definitely a great attraction. Great nature, architecture, history, beer :) I do not see why it should be deleted. Of course, add content - make it a part of a larger article about the surrounding park or may be some close city. I have just described what I have seen and it is definitely worth to be in the guide. Send some explorers there! :) Kyknos 09:02, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Hi, Kyknos. I think this monastery is probably better suited as an attraction listing within a destination article, rather than having an article of its own. Wikitravel:What is an article? explains our guidelines on this subject. LtPowers 09:57, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
I completely agree, but within what destination? I do not know the area. There is a big park around which seems interesting on the maps and a bunch of small cities I do not know anything about. So I think it should stay as it is until someone can add more content (and rename article as needed). Kyknos 10:04, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Do you have a pamphlet or something from this monastery that gives an address? That might be the easiest way to figure out where to place it. ChubbyWimbus 10:23, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
No, but according do the German Wikipedia (if I understand it correctly), Weltenburg is a district of nearby town Kelheim - but we have no content for it now. May be someone with better German should look at it. Kyknos 18:26, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] May 2009

[edit] Izakaya

A type of Japanese pub, should be merged into Japan. Jpatokal 22:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Merge & redirect. --Peter Talk 04:33, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Should it really be redirected after the merge? I don't think a redirect is really necessary for something like this. It's not a destination or a site. If someone is searching for "Izakaya" and doesn't know it's Japanese, I'd say they need a dictionary not a travel guide. ChubbyWimbus 10:56, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
    • The redirect is for attribution purposes. LtPowers 10:58, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Really? It just seems like creating a redirect page for everything would lead to an overabundance of unhelpful redirects. ChubbyWimbus 11:09, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
There's no such thing as an overabundance of redirects—they do no harm. --Peter Talk 18:05, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Unless they lead someplace that winds up confusing for the user. =) LtPowers 08:38, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Iwami

I do appologize if this is annoying (since I also nominted Ikeda), but regardless of what is decided with Ikeda, this one seems completely impractical/useless as a name for this city/site. I suggest making this into an Oda page, because the mine areas that you can tour are in Oda city, and it would allow people to add other things to do in the city, if there are any. Otherwise, making it into an attraction page (Iwami Ginzan) would at least make it a real location. My only hesitation with doing that is that if someone created an Oda page, there may not be much else to add other than Iwami Ginzan. ChubbyWimbus 10:53, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Kochi (Kerala)

  • Delete: duplication of Cochin, maybe copied from Cochin. -- Tatata 09:13, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
Shouldn't it be redirected then? ChubbyWimbus 09:52, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
Yes, it should be redirected. Pashley 01:39, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, why is it "Cochin" on Wikitravel when the city is more widely known as Kochi? Even on the article itself, it is referred to as Kochi everywhere except as its page name. It seems like Cochin should redirect to Kochi. ChubbyWimbus 11:02, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Actually, the up-to-date name is Kochi [3]. Anyone against a reverse redirect? ChubbyWimbus 19:47, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Antaiji

This is the name of a temple in Shinonsen, Hyogo. It is already mentioned in the Meditation in Japan page. No travel page links to it. Unless someone would rather redirect it (after creating a page for the city), there seems to be no reason to keep this. ChubbyWimbus 05:41, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's a destination or part of one, so it should either be turned into a full-fledged article or merged into the one it belongs to. Jpatokal 07:48, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] June 2009

[edit] Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove

  • Not a valid article - Could it be redirected to Osun or Osogbo as an attraction? - Huttite 23:48, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
It's a UNESCO site and should be kept as a redirect. Osobgo appears to be the nearest city of any size. Jpatokal 01:54, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Platja de Pals

  • Delete We don't make articles for beaches. ViMy 16:10, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Rename to Pals and outlineify. LtPowers 17:50, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Atlanta/Old Fourth Ward

  • Delete? Not sure about this one. Orphaned page. Seems like this area is covered in other articles. Someone with knowledge of Atlanta? ViMy 16:53, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Cruising the Baltic Sea

  • Delete. I don't see any reason to split this type of information out from our destination guides. Also, much of the article appears to be a copyright violation [4]. --Peter Talk 20:32, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Hmm, but we don't really have an article on the Baltic Sea. That title currently redirects to Baltic States, which you linked, but the sea borders other countries as well. Of course, if it's a copyvio... LtPowers 20:57, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, for time being. I actually told the user to try his hand at creating this instead of his original attempt at "Baltic Sea", which is clearly a no-no. Jpatokal 23:15, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
  • There is no copyright violation although some of the stuff was research elsewhere the sentences are my own. Baltic states is only 3 small states and the cruises seldom stop at any of them. The current redirect to baltic states from baltic sea actually makes no sense in my estimation since it is based only one the word being the same so far as I can tell. Baltic states is only a minor destination of three countries and have very little tourist value while the Baltic Seas cruises are quite popular and getting more so. You guys can, of course, do whatever you want. My intent is to provide a resource that can be used to springboard into other articles on the site and easy reference for a person going on the cruise. Of course there are many cruises and they don't all hit the same ports so the general nature is to provide references to all possible ports for the user. --DaleDe 01:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Just for the record, the two times I have checked, I get exact matches for copyrighted text (this last time: "sea temperature which, in the late spring is dependent upon the melting of the Winter"). My personal experience has been that cruises on the Baltic Sea that do not feature stops in the Baltic States rarely refer to the sea's name at all. Whenever I've seen "Baltic Cruises" or something of that sort, there is at least a stop in Riga. But my point above is really about content—there's no overwhelming amount of travel content that needs to be split out of the guides.
All that said, I disagree with Jani—I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have a Baltic Sea region article. But the copyvio text has to go. --Peter Talk 02:30, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Perfectly acceptable doesn't (to me) convey the gist of Wikitravel:Bodies of water. While I know there have been numerous discussions on this, so far the policy still reads that a destination guide (which includes a region guide, in my understanding) on a body of water is not acceptable. --inas 02:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
That would contradict my reading of Wikitravel:Bodies_of_water#Regions. The point of that policy is that we don't create articles to write about the bodies of water, and that is not what Dale has set out to do. --Peter Talk 02:52, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
I've been reading it as we don't make articles about bodies of water unless that's the natural name for the region in which they are located. LtPowers 10:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
This is beside the point -- in this particular case, it's quite obvious that "Baltic Sea" is not a sensible or necessary region grouping, since a) the countries around are dissimilar (compare, say, Kaliningrad and Denmark) and b) all the countries around it are already slotted in elsewhere.
However, I do agree with the original creator that the Baltic Sea is much larger than the three Baltic states, and that many cruises on that body of water don't even visit them. Eg. of the 7 cruises listed at [5] (#1 hit on Google for "baltic sea cruises"), only two actually stop in any of the Baltics. Jpatokal 13:13, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:NAdiningoverall.jpg

This is a pretty high-quality image, much better than the normal fare. Too bad the inside of a generic restaurant isn't really worth the quality. Listing was deleted from North Andover article for touting. No license information given, either, but if it wasn't for the uselessness of the image, I'd have at least made an attempt to ask the uploader for a license (since it appears to be self-taken). LtPowers 13:16, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Holiday-inn-sofia-hotel.jpg

This one really looks like it was taken from a web site, but I can't find it on the web. Regardless, it's not used (removed in this edit), primarily because pictures of hotels just aren't that interesting, even one that has some unique architectural elements. LtPowers 13:16, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. We don't keep images of hotels where their images aren't particularly notable in their destination. --inas 00:28, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Saranda map.jpg

A whole map just to show how to get to a hostel? No. Speedied as copyright violation from [6]. Listed here for documentation. LtPowers 13:19, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Mar Menor

Presumably should be merged into Murcia (region)? Jpatokal 01:13, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Mount Tambora

  • Delete. Appears to be a non-article, with no lodging. Perhaps the content could be moved to a Sumbawa article? If so, a redirect would be appropriate. --Peter Talk 00:16, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's a multi-day climb and there is accommodation on the slopes, and there's plenty of precedent for Indonesian mountains (Mount Bromo, Mount Rinjani, etc). Jpatokal 04:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Speedy kept. --Peter Talk 14:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Wikitravel:Short articles

[edit] Wikitravel:Long articles

[edit] Sino-Japanese cooperation in the realization of low-temperature hydrogen production

delete - not a travel topic. --Rein N. 08:33, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Speedied - --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 09:03, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Abu Dhabi (emirate)

I am not requesting a delete, and feel free to say that I'm being petty, but shouldn't "emirate" be capitalized as: Abu Dhabi (Emirate) or even written as it is in the name: Abu Dhabi (Emirates). It bugs me to see a location in lower-case. ChubbyWimbus 19:51, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

  • rename is what you request, can be asked on its talk page. --Rein N. 01:17, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
  • The word "emirate" is like "state" or "kingdom" and requires no capitalization AFAIK. LtPowers 11:34, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
Ah, I thought it was denoting the nation (like there was an "Abu Dhabi" in another country). Sorry about that. ChubbyWimbus 15:46, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
Nope, the other Abu Dhabi is the capital of the emirate of the same name, as well as the overall capital of the United Arab Emirates. LtPowers 17:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Dire-Dawa

Wikitravel currently has two pages for this city Dire-Dawa and Dire Dawa. The Dire-Dawa page has a lot of pasted text from Wikipedia [7], but the name is "Dire Dawa" on Wikipedia, so I suggest merging and redirecting Dire-Dawa into Dire Dawa. ChubbyWimbus 23:22, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Sounds entirely reasonable to me. --inas 19:46, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
Done. ChubbyWimbus 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] July 2009

[edit] Sheraton great valley hotel

  • delete A sleep entry at best. --Rein N. 14:47, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] BDSM travel

Doesn't look like a legitimate travel topic, despite the insightful information currently on the page. ChubbyWimbus 00:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Omkareshwar

A Hindu temple, all text copied from the Wikipedia article. ChubbyWimbus 15:21, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. I reverted it to the previous version, which isn't a copyvio. It's been up for VfD before, with this resolution. - Dguillaime 21:25, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] "Rhino Camp"

If this is a real destination, it should be redirected to simply Rhino Camp and then delete this page. ChubbyWimbus 20:50, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Cayo Ensenachos, Cayo las Brujas and Cayo Santa Mar;ia

  • Delete, because: it's a copyvio from [8] and trivially-Google-searchable others, it's all promo copy with little or no salvageable travel information; it's a title that's simultaneously long, covers what should be multiple separate articles, and misspelled (Mar;ia), giving it no value as a redirect. No one of these would be fatal, but when you add them all up, I think it's time to delete and start over. - Dguillaime 13:32, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion"