Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel

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] February 2008

[edit] What things cost

Evaluating every country on the local cost of two American products converted to the American dollar seems to me to be not only outside of our scope but also a rather myopic, biased and under-informative perspective. Plus, who is going to keep this thing up to date? BusinessWeek? Pricing information already given in the country articles and in the individual listings should already give the traveler a more reasonable idea of what to expect. Except, of course, for those thousands of people who travel the world smoking Marlboro Reds and eating nothing but Big Macs.

  • Delete. Texugo 21:00, 17 February 2008 (EST)
  • Wait and see. As it stands, this article is not a keeper. However, with a more thoughtfully chosen set of comparison items (if one is possible), I can imagine it as a valid travel topic under the "Buy" heading that actually assists the traveler -- which, after all, is what travel-topic articles are supposed to do. Let's give this one a little while to either take root or wither before deciding whether to delete it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:12, 17 February 2008 (EST)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable list. Article is less than a month old and already more than 3 years outdated. Pack of Marlboro Reds will cost you around R20, not R14.70, Coke around R5.50, not R4.50 and a Big Mac I have no idea as I totally avoid the place. The buy section in every county is a far better place to explain local currency purchasing power. --Nick 14:42, 2 March 2008 (EST)
I agree with Nick here. This article is a nice idea, but totally unmaintainable. Delete. PerryPlanet 12:00, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
  • As it stands, delete, but the topic is valid. Rewrite? with some general summary info -- don't pay European or American prices in third world countries, eat local food to save money, cameras and electronics are cheaper in Singapore, etc. -- and have links to things like per capita GDP as an indicator of living costs and to the Business Week article. Pashley 20:49, 2 March 2008 (EST)
  • A friend of a friend, an economist at that, wrote a hilarious book called "Ten Times the Price of a Haircut". Great read on life as a UN/World Bank itinerant consultant, mostly about mismanagement and ill-conceived projects. Title is from a rule he suggests for the cost of girls anywhere. Should we include that? :-) Pashley 20:57, 2 March 2008 (EST)
  • Split into articles of destination countries quoted. --DenisYurkin 08:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
  • I've done the rewrite, so keep. Pashley 01:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
I still don't see the point. When is someone going to need this article? What are they supposed to learn? It looks like common sense reiterated to me, and it's organized like a 9th grade essay. Texugo 01:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Inclined to delete. Nice idea... but... either way, let's figure it out soon, this has been here a few months now – cacahuate talk 20:06, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete Non-maintainable. -OldPine 12:35, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Discuss. I frequently see a need for 'price comparison across countries': how prices for electronics compare in US or Japan to Moscow; how prices for fashionwear compares in Milano to Moscow; how prices for jewelry or watches compare in Dubai to Moscow etc etc. How can we cater the needs like mine with Wikitravel? --DenisYurkin 18:24, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
We've been discussing for 4 months now... there seems to be a consensus to delete as far as I can tell; I think that's what we should do in the next couple days unless you've got a really convincing argument for keeping it... so far there's been none. If electronics are notably cheap in Moscow, enough so that it makes it relevant to a traveler, then we should note it on the Moscow page... we don't need a separate article to do that – cacahuate talk 16:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
My first point is to have a global article where I can find that for electronics I should consider Japan, not Singapore or even Moscow; for fur coats, I should go to Greece, and for quality leatherwear--to Vienna or whatever.
My second point is that facts like "X is x2 cheaper in Moscow than in New York" are irrelevant in Moscow article (as such facts don't make Moscow an attractive destination), nor they are relevant in New York (as it's a wrong place for facts on Moscow).
I've made a stub with both examples of price comparison facts I find useful, and with a short outline of where to go for specific shopping: User:DenisYurkin/Shopping around the world. Facts I already listed are mostly trivial, but I'm sure the community can contribute with much more useful. Not sure my examples will help What things cost to survive, but we still need a place for a facts like I listed. --DenisYurkin 05:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Right, except that we're Wikitravel not Wikishopping. Nobody is reading our website to figure out where to go based on shopping, but they may consider picking up some electronics in Taiwan if they already happen to be going there and find out that they're cheaper than at home, which is why it makes sense to then mention that under "Buy" in Taiwan article. I understand where you're trying to go with your example there, in theory, but I really just don't see how it will be useful, in reality. I really can't see anyone looking at that and making travel decisions based on it – cacahuate talk 19:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I think something along these lines is worth having. Consider the traveller going from Australia to Southeast Asia who wants a camera for the trip. Should he buy in Oz or Bangkok? How much would he save by starting his trip in Singapore and buying there? What about stereo equipment? Is that worth buying in Singapore or Hong Kong to bring home? Pashley 22:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
How about setting up an Incubator: namespace where we can place and discuss pages like the above--travel topics that are slippery slopes, but a clearly useful and maintainable form is still to be found--instead of just removing them? From previous history, Ferries in the Mediterranean and User:DenisYurkin/List of Ferries (and even maybe User:DenisYurkin/Paper travel guides?) might wait there for new ideas on how to make them up and running. --DenisYurkin 06:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not really about which namespace they're in, if we allow them we allow them. I think you should do what you're already doing... try to develop it in your user page sandbox, which others can add to as well if you let them know it's ok. Hopefully then once you start actually thinking them through you'll start to see which of the ideas actually have potential and which of them will just sit around as unrealized stubs for 10 years. Ferries in the Mediterranean is another good example... you argued it out of a successful deletion nearly 6 months ago but haven't touched it since... and it still contains absolutely no info that couldn't and shouldn't already be on the individual countries' get in/out sections. Like an itinerary, those kind of articles need someone with the desire and vision to write them, or at least give a solid base to build on, otherwise they won't really get touched and become useful.
Anyhow, we're off track now... we should be discussing the article up for VFD... Pashley has a point about buying a camera, but I think pieces of advice like that are better suited to a section on Urban backpacking, or under "prepare" in a RTW itinerary, etc. Trying to have one article that points to the best place to buy hundreds of different things or that tries to be a price comparison between countries is way out of scope IMO, and leads us to another one of those lovely unmaintainable lists. I don't think it's within our scope to advise people in general about where to buy a cheap business suit or a dvd player – unless it's something very particular about that destination, in which case it's better mentioned in that country's "buy" section, where people would expect to find it... nobody is looking for an article on WT that does price comparisons on dvd players to decide where to go; but if they're already headed to Singapore, let 'em know about it in "Buy" – cacahuate talk 16:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
1. Article on shopping and price comparison: I can't say for US, of course. For Russian travellers, shopping is an essential part of travel (especially when they travel to Europe and US)--and I think isn't also quite a case for some Europeans. As for Russia, many-many things are x2-x3 overpriced here, but not all of them--and it's not clear before you get to the brand's original country whether it'll be a huge saver to shop overseas or not. Things get worse when you don't look for specific brand, but for generic good-quality products like fashion footwear or formal suits--you can't easily go to online shops and find out that good-quality stuff can be bought times cheaper even if you don't know a single local brand in this country.
And yes, several popular travel guides published in Russia have a heavy section of shops worth visiting for a great value for money--for general-use products, not local souvenirs or regional gourmet specialties.
2. Incubator namespace: I believe that our mission (as editors at Wikitravel) is to help anyone sharing useful info to find a maintainable and long-living place and form for every piece of content we receive and find useful. Nowadays we expect visionaries to come and share--but revert any info that don't fit well into article format (like totally removing personal or single-occurrence experiences), and we VFD pages that an original author couldn't find a right form for from the first attempt.
The idea of separate namespace is to allow "wait-and see", "decide-later" scenario--not immediately considering it as "officially allowed" in here.
--DenisYurkin 17:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Re: 1... still think it's out of our scope, you could build a whole wiki around world shopping; but we're only debating the :en WT right now, :ru may well have more of an audience for shopping articles
Re: 2... our mission is... actually, I think that's just about the opposite of the spirit of non-goal #7; a travel guide without a discerning eye isn't a travel guide at all, it's a yellow pages.
My main point is that there's not much that I come across that is appropriate to WT and can't fit into our already existing guide structure. My goal is to try and avoid duplicating info across our site, unless absolutely necessary, which it almost never is IMO. The primary place for any info should always be the destination guides themselves. "Lists of..." types of articles IMO only start to suck info towards them that should be aimed at the guides; or worse, put in both, duplicating info that then needs to be kept in sync.
I actually like the original idea for this article, when the info is in the articles themselves, the way I did in Bangladesh#Buy... I think that's a great use of an infobox. LP also does this, and I think it's useful... not just in gauging how much you'll be spending in a country, but also for knowing that a bottle of water should cost Rs 10, and to punch anyone who asks for Rs 100.
So.... then the article was re-written into its current format, and as it stands now, I still think that everything in it (and that will likely be added to it in the future) has a place elsewhere... breaking it down: any relevant info in the opening section and "Cheaper countries" should be (and some already is) in Money#Costs. Info in the "Electronics" section should be primarily in the individual country articles, and then perhaps touched on in any appropriate itineraries, as I said above about Pashley's point on cameras.
I agree that vfd'ing this the day it was created was maybe a bit rash... it could have been discussed and guided on the talk page first into an appropriate focus or to a different place on the site. I have no problem letting some things sit around and see how they develop, much like Bill says above, but I'd just like to move this one along because a) it seems clear to me that there's better places for the info, and b) I know that you're allergic to conclusions :) – cacahuate talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
  1. I agree that this specific article in its current form is not maintainable or practical enough.
  2. What is the best place and way to continue this discussion on other forms of shopping/pricing-centric articles? (clearly a vfd discussion page is not a best place for that)
  3. At this point it looks logical to consider: (a) Shopping Destinations article -- places where people head primarily for shopping (I can name only a few destinations, but they do exist), (b) price comparison "Moscow vs rest of world" looks for me like the easiest way to plunge forward; pitifully such info will be available only on :ru (until we find a way to incorporate it to :en); (c) probably, Tips on Shopping article.
  4. Generally, between-the-lines thesis "this is non-goal at :en, try at :ru" alarms me--looks like Wikitravel is still very westerner-centric.
--DenisYurkin 19:39, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Not Western-centric, traveler-centric, which was the conclusion of the conversation you just linked to as well. I'm not advocating that you create those on Russian WT, I personally would like to see them nowhere... but, I said that in response to you saying that it's something Russian's are very likely to find useful... so perhaps that will be one of the various differences between ru and en.

The best place to discuss further (and where this convo should be copied) is Talk:Travel topics. I'd also argue against a "Moscow against the rest of the world", since that would very logically just be placed at Moscow#Buy.

RE: "tips on shopping", we already have haggling... I'm struggling to think of more angles that can't be covered there that don't segue back into prices comparing. But for sure if you think of some bring it up at Talk:Travel topics.

So I'm thinking we delete, any other arguments for keeping? Last call... I think I may copy to Pashley's userspace in case she wishes to keep it for future thought? – cacahuate talk 22:58, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

"Moscow against rest of the world": when you visit the rest of the world with Moscow as home region / Moscow prices as reference for comparison, it's more logical to seek info on prices and good deals in a specific region, not a one-article-cover-all "what things cost in Moscow" which give no idea on which products can be found in a specific country/city--whether overpriced in Russia or entirely not available. --DenisYurkin 04:20, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
"Tips on shopping": travel destinations; duty-free air/port shops; tax-free shopping; "If you buy with a Singapore-only warranty, what can you do with this electronics at home?" to name a few. --DenisYurkin 04:20, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
→ Talk:Travel_topics#Shopping_articles – cacahuate talk 12:58, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Nice effort, but it just doesn't work for me. -- Colin 22:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. I've been leaning delete for a long time on this, but kept quiet since Sandy did a nice reworking of the article. But ultimately, I see any serious effort to analyze differences in the real costs of goods across countries to be beyond the scope of Wikitravel. For more casual analysis, along the lines of "digital cameras are both more advanced and cheaper in Japan than elsewhere, so if you don't mind the Japanese interface, buy your cameras here," can just go in the country buy sections—I tend to think its best not to duplicate that info in a travel topic.
I could perhaps envision an article that broke down into sections by type of goods (i.e., clothes, high-tech goods, fine dining, accommodations, etc.) and listed some of the best (cheapest) places in the world to get them. Off the top of my head, I certainly couldn't write that, but I could suggest Hong Kong for clothes, Japan for high-tech, fine dining might actually be at best values in North America, and that's all I've got. Such an article would be much more specific, and more resembling a list of pointers. But as is, I'm coming down on delete. --Peter Talk 01:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] June 2008

[edit] Elbsandstone Mountains (Saxon Switzerland)

My bias: I know we have some, but I'm not a fan of articles about mountain ranges. This could be a redirect I suppose, given a title change, but I don't know that it serves us as a stand alone article. It seems to have been written (or copied) just to support an external link (which I removed). I would have speedy deleted if I weren't such a team player ;) --OldPine 12:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. IMO there are times when it makes sense to treat a mountain range as a "region," but this is not among them. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:00, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Charon.jpg

Tagged with {{vfd}} since February, but nothing seems to have happened since. Anyway, this image appears to be a copyvio. It's from Steamboat Willie, which is still copyrighted in the U.S. Only used in an April Fool's article. JYolkowski 22:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll stay neutral since I'm the uploader, but as far as I'm concerned is the crown jewel in our Hell article and I'd be sad to see it go... ho hum – cacahuate talk 21:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Can't say I get the joke, but it's an obvious copyright violation and must go. Sorry. LtPowers 21:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
You don't find it funny that Mickey Mouse is the gatekeeper to Hell? Suppose you had to be there. Sapphire will kill you. But, delete – cacahuate talk 01:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Do we have a "fair-use" policy paralleling Wikipedia's? This has passed muster there. I believe our policy is more restrictive, however. Scratch that. The colorized version is probably not "fair-use," alas. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Phaistos

  • Delete. Looks like a non-article to me. I presume that you can't sleep there. It probably should get a mention, though, at either the nearest town or its parent region. --Peter Talk 14:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete Agree. OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Given the vast number of hits that a Google search on this name reveals, I'd prefer a redirect -- but to where? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Unless someone who knows the area has a better suggestion, just redirect to Crete. The current article has only one line of text, no indication of region or nearest town. Pashley 07:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Disabled travel in Egypt

  • Delete. While this could conceivably be a valid travel topic, it's currently just a random small city template + an advert for a travel agency. I doubt we'll see any volunteers to write this properly. --Peter Talk 16:43, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete per Peter -- Colin 19:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Although it looks like an advert for a tour operator right now but if volunteers could help to edit it then the information would be very useful for disabled travelers. Barracuda 12:46, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Having created a similar article myself (Disabled travel in South Africa) I obviously don't see the topic itself as a problem, but I also don't see any reason to keep almost empty travel topics around. If it does not at least contains some useful information it should be deleted. --Nick 14:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Trollstigen

  • Merge to somewhere? I don't want to see this good content deleted, but it's currently not formatted in a way that fits into our website, really. Could we merge this to the "do" section of a region article? Or the "get out" section of Valldal? Or would it warrant a full itinerary? --Peter Talk 18:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, but with changes. Is it just a day trip? If so, merging to the "get out" section of Valldal is probably better. If you can sleep there, or if it is a route into hiking and camping territory, then it should probably become an itinerary. Either way, it should lose the "ëxternal links" section which violates policy and, this being a mountain road in Norway, I suspect it needs warnings about being closed or dangerous in winter. Pashley 09:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Image:BannerMM copy.jpg

  • Logo, not useful to the traveler --Nick 02:23, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Image:2117637786 773865b4c8 b.jpg

  • People in photo --Nick 02:23, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • The people in the photo aren't recognizable, so this isn't deletable on privacy violation grounds... however I don't see the usefulness of it, and nothing links to it... so I still say delete for those reasons – cacahuate talk 01:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Sun Peaks

  • Merge-Redirect Keep I'm thinking this doesn't qualify under guidelines on what is an article and I feel it could be covered under the nearest town (to which it previously was redirected). However, my aging memory seems to recall other ski resort articles and I would like to get a consensus so that persistent restarting can be judged concretely. --OldPine 11:39, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Sun peaks seems to pass the "can you sleep there?" test, and there are also many other articles that are devoted to ski resorts. I did a search for 'ski resort' before I decided to go ahead with Sun Peaks, just to be sure that it was something fairly common. Large ski resorts are also tend to be the size of a small town. Sun Peaks also does not fit under: "What does not get its own article?" Occasional Traveller 07:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree with cacahuate that you can sleep at a hotel, but that shouldn't be the only requirement for an article. Sun Peaks (and many other Ski Resorts are much more than a hotel. They are little towns in their own rights, with homes owned by private citizens, as well as shops and cafes within the "town". ... just another 2 cents on this one.. Occasional Traveller 09:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. At 45 minutes from the nearest city, it seems like it's a valid destination in its own right. Agree that it passes the "Can you sleep there" test. LtPowers 21:50, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Undecided. We need to clearly define what our criteria are for acceptable ski resort articles. "Can you sleep there" is just a guideline; IMO it's more like "if you can't sleep there, then no article", but not "if you can, then definitely article". You can also sleep at a hotel, but we don't allow articles on hotels. BUT, let's discuss this in an appropriate place, not on VFD: Wikitravel_talk:What_is_an_article?#Ski_resorts – cacahuate talk 01:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. The basic criterion that has worked in places like Colorado and New Mexico is that a ski resort that is part of a town (e.g. Taos Ski Valley, which is part of the community of Taos that has a lot of destination-ish features beyond the ski area) doesn't get its own article, but is subordinated to the town's article. If the ski resort is the town (e.g. Red River, one that I happen to be familiar with and know is not "part of" any town but itself) and provides the services that a destination provides, then it is as valid a destination as anywhere else. This one definitely seems to fall in the latter class, and strikes me as a clear keep. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Template:Delete

  • Delete. hehe. If an admin sees something that is speedy-deletable then they'll do it, if a user sees something, then they should list it here on the VFD page to draw attention to it... admins do speedy deletes from this page as necessary – cacahuate talk 11:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, concurring with the above. OldPine 13:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] All images uploaded by User:Sal

I meant to do this a while ago but forgot... he uploaded quite a few images, that are clearly not all taken by the same photographer... some I believe are copyvios from Guide360.com, though I can't get that website to load now... but a google search for 8718201a0abeffee2.jpg turns up the same Faisal Masjid pic, and I saw it there originally when he uploaded. I think we should delete all images that he's uploaded. – cacahuate talk 21:24, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete A good call (as usual). --OldPine 08:51, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, if an uploader misrepresents a copyrighted work as his own, that seems to me a good reason not to trust any of the user's other uploads. JYolkowski 21:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Titilaka

Seems to be a resort rather than a town, but I may be wrong --Nick 13:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Clearly a hotel/resort rather than a destination, but let's follow the process. It needs to be de-linked from several pages before it's deleted, btw. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:31, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Viñales

Viñales is a small town next to a national park, which has the same name. I moved this page to Parque_Nacional_de_Viñales. Maybe I should have moved the page rather than created a new page and deleted the old page? Sorry, I wasn't sure at first if there should be separate pages for the town and the national park. I can see an argument for the latter (e.g., most national park pages don't have nightlife sections!) but most tourists go there to hike in the day and salsa dance at night, so I put the town and national park on one page.--Chapayev 16:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Viñales should definitely be about the town.. you can sleep there, and it's a popular destination. Whether or not we need an additional article for the National Park depends on how much there is to see, etc... if there's not a ton of stuff to write an article about the park and just a handful of sites, then the ones nearby the town can go in the "Get out" section of Viñales (city) and the others can go on the Pinar del Rio (province) page. But we should definitely move the city page back to Viñales  :) – cacahuate talk 18:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
If you look at the map you'll see that the town of Viñales is inside the national park. You can sleep in every national park in the United States, as far as I know, and all are popular destinations. There's "a ton of stuff" about the park waiting for someone to type it, on the photos I uploaded from the exhibits in the national park headquarters.--Chapayev 23:13, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Then we should have articles on both. Viñales should be the article for the town... as for the park, what's the most common name (not necessarily the official name)? Wikipedia calls it Viñales Valley – cacahuate talk 12:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] July 2008

[edit] Image:Gawai.JPG and Image:Gawai dayak.JPG

People in photo --Nick 03:45, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Marinafish.jpg

People in photo --Nick 03:48, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Checked-in Luggage Charges

Fairly blatant plug for Luggage delivery service (which is a valid article). Jpatokal 13:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Singapore/Singapore Flyer and Singapore flyer

Don't seem to meet article criteria, and obvious copyvios from Wikipedia. JYolkowski 20:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Kill it quickly. Attractions don't get articles, and our license is not GFDL compatible. LtPowers 21:15, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Speedy deleted I concur. --OldPine 21:27, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Image:SS_Train.jpg and Image:SS_Train_Resized.jpg

shared:Image_policy#People_in_photos. --Jonboy 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Medical tourism

  • Delete. Medical tourism is a reason for travel, not a way of travel. It would be silly to have an "Ink toner travel" article that made suggestions about where on the planet you should go to make deals to get supplies of ink toner. We shouldn't recommend places for non-emergency medical treatment. Secondly, I think the entire issue of non-urgent medical treatment exceeds the scope of our goals. Medical decisions can easily cost lives and we should not involve ourselves in this topic. Given the serious amounts of money involved in this sub-industry, policing ourselves against touts (or even detecting which ones are touts) is just way more effort than it's worth. Let's declare this subject Not Our Problem. -- Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree with Colin's statements above. I think this belongs in the same category as sex tourism and we should not carry detailed information about the topic. There are many other places on the web where people can find this kind of information if they really want. No need to have it here. --Nick 03:38, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep This article is well balanced presenting both the possible benefits and drawbacks of medical tourism. It certainly doesn't "tout" anything. What I think it could benefit from are some contributions from people who actually have travelled abroad for medical care -- someone who actually has underwent a procedure such as LASIK surgery, for example, could probably add some useful comments about how they made a decision to seek treatment overseas. Among the expat community getting medical care outside of one's home country is quite common. Also I don't think this has anything to do with sex tourism so why make the comparison.SONORAMA 11:11, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Just to clarify -- I'm not saying the existing article touts. What I am saying is that if someone adds a clinic in Tijuana that sounds reasonable but is a tout, it will be too hard to detect the problem. It's not like a Bar where one can visit it and immediately say this sucks and then delete it from Wikitravel. -- Colin 15:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – cacahuate talk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
  • A Proposal Colin's doubts on the topic seem to be that anything medical-related is beyond the scope of Wikitravel and the potential harm that could come if someone took bad advice from an article. In other words, the issue is not with the article itself, but rather with what potentially links to it. I say "potentially" because as of right now the article has no links whatsoever.
So my proposal is this. Similar to Wikitravel's policy against links to hotel aggregator booking sites, let's make a policy against recommending specific doctors or clinics in medical tourism articles. Instead, appropriate links to provide might be: Links to the local-country medical association or credentialing body, links to hotels and inns that specialize in recuperative stays for medical tourism patients (such places do exist) and also links to US based international medical accreditors such as the Joint Commission International[1] Medical tourism is a huge and growing trend, and since many travelers come to Wikitravel first for information, it is important that we include information about this aspect of travel here. SONORAMA 20:32, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd be okay with the general discussion and medical association stuff. It wouldn't really work to link to hotels and inns since they tend to be associated with specific physicians that we really can't vouch for. So in other words, I'd be okay with a policy where we never link to a medical service provider of any sort. -- Colin 22:49, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I agree with User:Borndistinction as of course wikitravel aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.
  • Keep. Well! Of course nowadays Medical tourism is so popular that most of the travel related websites do contain information about Medical tourism so why not wikitravel too? Although the article needs to be plunge forward, this could be a very usable one. Barracuda 12:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I agree with Colin: medical tourism is a big topic and definitely in scope, but we should keep it high-level, in the same way as we already do in the scuba diving articles: talk about the diving itself, not the operators (and certainly not the individual divemasters). However, large hospitals should still continue to be listed in city articles, the way we list them today. Jpatokal 04:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Obviously. Pashley 19:02, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Medical Tourism is huge these days and if Wikitravel aspires to be the definitive online travel guide it is something we should be trying to cover. Jpatokal's point about keeping it high level is something I would agree with. Tarr3n 08:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, seems to be a valid travel topic. Agree with keeping it high-level as mentioned above. JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Quick question—don't we have a disclaimer somewhere absolving Wikitravel & contributors from lawsuits deriving from harm arising from following Wikitravel advice? I can't seem to find that anywhere. --Peter Talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I just happened across it in shared:Copyleft#Things for users to know, and remembered reading this query back here. Perhaps there should be a link titled Disclaimer on the Main Page that links to it? Tarr3n 05:53, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Medical Tourism in Thailand

  • Delete. For the reasons given above for Medical tourism, and because it is unnecessarily specific to Thailand. Oh, and it's a tout piece, but that could be fixed. -- Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

These articles provide information as to guide travellers looking for destinations and their specialization in order to help travellers choose the country to visit for specific purpose. And medical tourism, golf, spas, diving are very popular ones that people specially travel for now-a-days to enjoy such activities. So i think these are few of the most important articles that people would consider before travelling as wikitravel is the website which guides travellers for travelling at different destinations with any reason of traveller's choice. Wikitravel aims to be a guide, isn't it so? So i strongly disagree to let them be deleted. --Borndistinction 04:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep The article has some good references to medical associations and clinics. The text is indeed a little too positive, almost as if it were copied from a brochure. However this can be improved and more balanced information introduced rather than deleting. And yes, lots of people do go to travel abroad for medical reasons -- it is a very legitimate travel topic. SONORAMA 11:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – cacahuate talk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep As mentioned above, how justifiable would it be to have articles on other reasons to travel in specific countries such as Golf in Australia, but not one on Medical in Thailand. In fact, Med in Thailand is huge in comparison to say Golf in China and the stats in the article prove it. Thai-blogs
  • Keep I agree with User:Borndistinction as of course wikitravel aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.
  • Keep. It is a travel related article whose concept does match today’s requirements. People nowadays look more for this type of articles because they need a variety of information when they research. As wikitravel is a very popular travel guide getting the best travel website award by WEBBY AWARDS for the year 2007 [[2]], people may consider this web too. So I agree for keeping this article. Barracuda 12:51, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Not sure. If it can be merged into the more general Medical tourism article (which should be kept!), then I'd say it should be. I do not know how practical that is, though. If it is not, then keep. Pashley 19:09, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge into Medical tourism and Thailand. There's some good information here which it would be a shame to lose, and as I commented above, I agree that Medical tourism is a valid topic.Tarr3n 08:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • If there's anything worthwhile merging, merge as above, else delete. JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Retirement in Thailand

Deciding where to spend your non-travelling retirement is not a travel topic.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Unsure. If we're going to do an article on retirement (and I'm not sure if that's within the scope of Wikitravel) then it should be a general article topic, and not specific to Thailand. Additionally, this article duplicates a significant amount of information from the Thailand article that isn't retirement-specific (currency, weather, etc). At a minimum it should be cleaned-up to be retirement-specific, and if the subject is deemed to be outside of Wikitravel's scope then it should be removed. Let's give it some time and see what happens. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Even though its not a 100% travel topic but it still includes and relate to travelling to other country for specific purpose which is itself considered as a travel topic.

Well whichever country a person would like to live after retirement is his/her choice. But while choosing a country, he/she needs to consider different information, facts and destinations of the country. So well, one of the seventh most famous destination of the world for retirement is Nongkhai, Thailand, which is of course not same as other countries. So, giving information about Retirement in Thailand is providing all the information a person would need to know while choosing Thailand or while travelling to Thailand.

Whereas some facts about the country (currency, weather, etc.) i agree to keep it on Thailand page rather than putting in this article. --Borndistinction 05:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Retirement is not travel. LtPowers 11:40, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Absolutely, retirement abroad doesn't concern travel. Well, agreed. By the way, were you guys former comical-contestants on American Idol? Thai-blogs
    • The point, my friend, is that the travel one takes while retired is essentially no different from the travel one takes at other times in one's life -- thus our standard travel guides work just fine for retired people. LtPowers 19:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm not sure this article should be kept. However, a general article on Retiring abroad would be valid for much the same reasons that Working abroad and Teaching English are. Thailand would get a prominent place in any such article. Pashley 18:30, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not travel relevant – cacahuate talk 21:51, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Why on Earth would you consider it "Not travel relevant"? Retiring abroad is one way to travel, and a major reason to retire abroad — whether Thailand or Costa Rica or wherever — is to use it as a base for further travel. This is not outside our scope. Wikitravel is a travel guide, not just a tourist guide. Articles like War zone safety or Teaching English are valuable. This may have the wrong scope — perhaps we just need a general Retiring abroad article — and may need other work. but I'd say it is obviously relevant. Pashley 18:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
    • "Retiring abroad" is not "one way to travel". "Cruise ship" is one way to travel. "Segway" is one way to travel. "Retiring abroad" is a reason to travel, and we don't generally have articles on reasons to travel. We don't have articles on "Visiting family in Thailand," "Getting away from work in Thailand," or "Business travel to Thailand", and "Retirement in Thailand" is on par with those topics. LtPowers 19:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, but with caveats. I'm not sure we should rule out retiring abroad as a topic on Wikitravel, but I do think we should delete this article. I would tend to consider retiring abroad to not be travel, but then again, that might be too conservative a position—you could consider retiring abroad the "final travel" (although that seems morbid now that I've written it). The reasons for a retirement abroad are broader than the desire to travel, but I still think travel is playing a role in the decision; one might move to Panama just to cut costs, but my hunch is that's just a perk for an adventurous older couple looking to explore the region and to have monkeys in the back yard and a tropical beach out front. I will suggest we delete this article, since it comes across as a tout piece for retiring in Thailand, and duplicates content in a way that ignores our site's basic organizing logic. So to be clear, I lean in favor of a general article on retiring abroad (if someone were to write it!), but not this article. --Peter Talk 02:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Lots of people like to explore and have monkeys and beaches -- what makes retirement significantly different than other reasons for travel? LtPowers 08:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely Keep The article is packed with information and well written. Why delete such a gem? Also, from the comments above it seems that many people have lots of misconceptions about "retirement travel". Fact is, today there's a large class of people who are retiring younger, and with the means to afford international travel and even one or more residences abroad. "Retirement travel" does not mean that a retired persons simply moves to another land never to be heard from again. Rather, lots of people split their time between two or even three countries, sometimes moving with the seasons, other times changing locales to suit their personal, family or medical needs. Essentially, a lot of overseas retirees live a life that combines elements of the expat experience with the tourist experience. It's a huge group -- and in one that in fact includes more than a few Wikitravel contributors. Snub them at our own peril. SONORAMA 11:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Diving in Thailand

Redundant vs. Scuba diving, Scuba diving in Asia and specific listings for Thailand.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

By the way, what about Scuba diving in Australia then? isn't that redundant too but it is still acceptable? What's the difference between Scuba diving in Australia and Diving in Thailand? May i know please in case i can adjust my content to match wikitravel.--Borndistinction 03:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep Yes, how can you have an article on Diving/Australia but not Diving/Thailand?! Double standards? .--Thai-blogs
  • Keep It's one of the better travel topic articles we have.
  • Keep I'd sooner see Diving in Southeast Asia and scrap both the Asia and Thailand articles; that strikes me as the right scope. However, I'm not a diver and not volunteering to do the work, so that opinion can be ignored. Pashley 18:45, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. The basics on "diving in Thailand" should be covered in Thailand#Do, and then individual destinations should be covered in those respective articles... we don't need to strip this out of the main Thailand article – cacahuate talk 19:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • How about using the article as a pointer? ie, keep the general info on this page, but the specific info on local articles. In this case, places such as Krabi can be listed as links rather than headings... just throwing out an idea... WindHorse 23:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Spas in Thailand

I see nothing in this piece that suggests Spas are any different in Thailand versus anywhere else on the planet. So spas should just be listed in individual articles normally.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep --Sorry Colin, but you are wrong. The most significant difference between spas in Thailand and spas in other parts of the world is that Thai spas emphasize Thai massage. Thai massage is hardly available in most spas in The US, or if it is, it has to be booked in advance. Very very few spas in The US bind spa treatment with Buddhism, unlike Thailand. I think this article has stated quite clearly these major differences. .--Thai-blogs
  • Keep Every country has different cities and provinces specialized in certain different things... am i right? Thailand is also one of them as it specializes in Spas. In this article (as mentioned for Diving in Thailand above) has content specific to the country at which the country is popular for. That doesn't mean that if there are 100 types of spas around the world and Thailand would be specialized in all. So, this article has brought only those spas which are popular in Thailand but not all types.

Moreover, the spa destinations, spa packages, spa programs, Thai spa cuisine provided in this article are all specific to Thailand which the country specializes at. So of course it is not the same as any other country.--Borndistinction 04:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:01, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - I have to agree with Colin, Spas should be listed in individual articles. If they are a specific reason to visit the country then surely a section on the Country page is enough. Tarr3n 12:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I have to agree with the great brains of Tarr3n that there certainly ought to be categories listed in individual categories with a specific reason to visit the country, thus guaranteeing a certain section on the country page. "If they are" (if there are?) countries offering something different oustide of The US, then they out to be deleted, as, who knows? Having a massage elsewhere may be dangerous for one's health. -- Wikitravel = Double Standards? Thai-blogs
    • I don't want to get into a slanging match but I do resent the suggestion that I might be anti Thailand, or (worse?) pro-USA. I've never been to North America and it's not high on my list of places I'd like to visit (though given the current exchange rates between Sterling/Euro against Sterling/Dollar it's starting to look more attractive!). If this vfd had been for spas in USA, Spas in Wales or Spas in Chad I would have given exactly the same opinion. Tarr3n 04:39, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. We prefer to keep information in the actual guide articles, rather than stripping them out into travel topics.... that only becomes necessary when there's an exceptionally large amount of info to write about them that can't fit in the Thailand article. There's plenty of room there to briefly discuss what sets Thai massages apart from those in other countries, etc. Individual spas should only be listed in the city that they are located in. Definitely delete and merge relevant info into the Thailand article – cacahuate talk 21:48, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, I'm not sure that this is a field of pursuit in the same way that, say, diving is. Does anyone travel to Thailand for the primary purpose of going to spas there? JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Spa travel is a huge market including its own magazines, etc. Yes, there is a large class of people who like to travel the world to pampered at various spas. Agreed this might not be everyone's ideal form of travel - but it's definetly an article we shoud keep. If I was looking for a spa or legitimate massage in Thailand, for instance, it would be very nice to have info about them all in one article. SONORAMA 11:35, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] University_at_uffalo

Hey, so I am a newbie here and accidentally created this page when making a redirect page for the University_at_Buffalo page. It wasn't until I already hit the save button that I realized my error, and now I have to go through this process to delete it?

Yes, if you note it here, then an admin can delete it... I just did... thanks! – cacahuate talk 21:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Scotland National Scenic Areas

I originally started this page as there was an article for United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the equivalent designation in England and Wales), but not one for NSAs. After reading, and taking part in, some of the discussions on other vfds above, I think this information should be moved into Scotland and/or the appropriate regions, and am happy to do the work. Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

As with Scotland National Scenic Areas, I don't think this needs its own article. The information on the Welsh AONBs is already duplicated in Wales, and I would suggest that the English AONBs be listed in England and/or the relevant regional articles. Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] United Kingdom National Parks

Same argument as United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Scotland National Scenic Areas, I just don't see a need for this to be a Travel Topic in its own right. I suggest the information should be listed in England, Wales or Scotland as appropriate. (Wales already has it.). Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Mulu park map.gif

Copyvio, listed here rather than speedy so that the uploaded can see why we are deleting --Nick 17:33, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion"