I'm assuming this relates to the English football team. Recommend for deletion unless there is a place called Arsenal. Shaund 23:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Possible disambiguation page; there are a lot of arsenals that are attractions. Wikipedia:Arsenal (disambiguation) indicates no places with that name except maybe a section of Paris. LtPowers 10:31, 29 November 2008 (EST)
I thought the team was named for a London neigborhood. Disambig sounds good to me. Pashley 00:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. Disambiguation pages are for articles where the title allows ambiguity, and articles are about destinations, not attractions. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:10, 20 December 2008 (EST)
Delete, it's a good pic, but it's copyright. Edmontonenthusiast 14:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
The copyvio image appears to have been replaced with a different one. I'd still vote delete, as it doesn't contribute anything notable, but let's make sure that we're acting on the right thing. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Keep, its a good picture and I kind of find it insulting people don't want my pictures. Kind of lures me away from contributing. I didn't even know this was going on, and it's my picture, I should have known. If I wasn't on, I wouldn't have known. It, to me, shows tourists that this place is busy and that because of that it seems attractive and desirable. Do you just want me to go back without thee market in session and take it as a "blank canvas" with no one there. Ya, thats gonna lure people there tsk tsk. Especially with all the barrenness, yay!Edmontonenthusiast 13:53, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete. That's not a comment on the quality of the picture. We're glad you want to contribute pictures. But for legal reasons, it's part of the image policy on this website that photos can't have recognizable people in them - unless they signed a waiver form giving you permission to use their image. Nobody's trying to squash your enthusiasm. That's just the policy by which the several thousand images on this site exist. Here's an example of a photo from a food market where the photographer managed to create a great image of the food and not the people. Gorilla Jones 14:06, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, it's really reassuring. Anyways, I assume it's ok to have people in the picture as long as they aren't recognizable (E.g. far away, head turned, whatever)? Edmontonenthusiast 14:19, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, we have some photos like that. Gorilla Jones 14:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Good, because I've uploaded some photos like that. Edmontonenthusiast 14:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Comment. This isn't really in violation of our policy, none of these people are crucial to the picture, any of them could be removed without changing it. I would, however, like to see a different pic uploaded that maybe has fewer people in it, it would serve the article better. Also, this is image is on shared, we can't vfd a image on shared from the english WT, you have to do it over there :) – cacahuatetalk 15:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Cacahuate! Your points are very well taken, the reason why I took that photo is because it looks more appealing seeing a place full of life because then a traveller thinks, "If all those people go there, and seem content, it must be good!" Sadly the only other farmers market pictures (The Old Strathcona one) are of random signs and the xterioer! Edmontonenthusiast 16:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete. IMO the people are the focus of the photo, and are easily identifiable. --Inas 21:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
The point was to show the "hustle and bustle" of the area... Edmontonenthusiast 00:34, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The picture of is a crowded market scene, and our policy explicitly allows those. But again, it's a moot point, because this image resides on shared, and anyone wants it deleted they need to nominate it there, not here – cacahuatetalk 01:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
But unfortunately I don't think the photo succeeds at that. It doesn't look to me like a crowded market scene, that would show lots of people more anonymously. Instead it shows three people quite close up, and far from anonymous. I'd be annoyed if one of the people in the front of the frame was me. Edmontonenthusiast seems like an engaged, reasonable person. I'm sure if the consensus is that its is inappropriate, he/she will replace it appropriately, and an admin delete won't be necessary. --Inas 01:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Inas! Hey, well sorry I forgot to take pictures I wanted that day because I was so into the market and just took one as I was leaving. I thought if you looked behind those people you'd see people. Anyways I can't really edit 'em out without like destroying the pictures purpose. Although ,you'll have to discuss this on shared. If you guys really hate it, I don't know how to delete, but it can get voted off I guess. I see all your points as valid so there's no point fighting. ¡Bien Días de los Muertes! Edmontonenthusiast 17:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
With that, it links to London/West End but there are multiple "West End"'s and travellers may be looking for others. It may be the most common, but still! Keep smiling, eetalk 16:49, 13 November 2008 (EST).
Delete.' Keep smiling, eetalk 16:49, 13 November 2008 (EST).
Keep, but make it a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Even if London's is the most famous West End, it doesn't follow that it's always going to be the one for which users are looking. LtPowers 17:29, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Exactly, good point. Disambiguation page would be great! Keep smiling, eetalk 17:36, 13 November 2008 (EST).
Changed to a disambiguation page. Texugo 00:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Outcome: Kept as disambiguation page. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)
User:Anwarul vfd'd this article back in August but apparently didn't add it to this page. The page needs to be cleaned up at the very least, but I don't know enough about the area to say whether it should exist as a region article or not, although there are at least a few city articles under it in the hierarchy.
Keep I've just gone through the history... There was a much better article back in May. I've rolled back to that edit, but I have also re-added the vfd tag just to keep things linked. Nrms 04:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Keep Nrms gives an excellent reason. Pashley 06:06, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Keep. The area is a bit of a strange duck — it was basically just palm plantations until they decided to plonk down the new KL airport and F1 track there — but the May 2008 city article is the least inappropriate. Jpatokal 09:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Just a little addendum - I think in general it's better to use wikipedia for checking, as google's coverage is spotty at best outside developed countries - there are 6 places called Glod in Romania for instance.
Are you saying the all-powerful Google might have got something wrong??? ;) But joking aside, relevant point for future reference. Perhaps this needs adding somewhere like the Nominations section up above. Not that we'd have had much joy in this case given the lack of useful content. Nrms 08:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well, well, well - wouldn't you know. Silly text eh? Google gotten something wrong? may I quote wikipedia "Glod was a shooting location for the mockumentary film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" :o) he! You just learn something new and entirely useless every day on the interweb, don't you. :) --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I could have sworn I checked Wikipedia before speedying. Guess not. Anyway, it's still a valid speedy because the content was useless. LtPowers 22:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Not meant as a criticism at all - if someone feels like they have something to add to the matter, I have no problem with them using 10 extra seconds to create the page. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 22:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Delete The page is in French. I relocated the text into French Wikitravel. We already have a page in Wikitravel/en for Saarbrücken. I think it was created in error. Jnich99 11:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Doesn't really warrent an article, and the naming is bad bad bad, also see the Talk page Sertmann 22:51, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete or Redirect. Normally, I'd be tempted to just speedy delete this, but a redirect works just fine too. So, as an admin I'd delete, but as a non-admin, I'd just redirect, since that takes less time than a vfd. --PeterTalk 23:07, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete, but not speedy. Let's follow the process. A redirect to TusenFryd could be discussed, but I don't think it's correct; the park's own web site basically says there's no lodging there, although there is some nearby. A redirect to Kolbotn might be better; that's where they say the nearest hotel is. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:15, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
The smallest surrounding region for which we have an article appears to be Akershus. Beyond that, I can't say which towns/cities/villages would be worth an article or not. LtPowers 09:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
I think it may be time to revisit that policy. We have articles on Great Lakes and Lake Titicaca, for example. Lakes and rivers that are likely to be the target of user searches should have articles, even if just to direct the user to other articles. LtPowers 10:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete - sometimes lakes refer to a region around the lake, like the Great Lakes. That would seem to me to make them valid articles, because they don't just refer to the body of water, but the surrounding area. This doesn't appear to me to be the case for this article. --Inas 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Merge and Redirect - I have to agree with LtPowers in that Lake Maggiore is a likely search target for users. I don't know an awful lot about either of them but my perception would be that Lake Maggiore is of a similar status to Lake Garda, which does have an article. Before being drawn to the articles by this vfd I had never heard of any of the towns listed as being on the shores of them, however I was aware of both lakes as popular destinations for tourists and travellers.
On the other hand I do feel that the policy of bodies of water not being a valid topic is a sound one in most cases. I wouldn't like to see a sudden slew of articles about random rivers, lakes, bays, gulfs etc which would make a mess of the existing geographical hierarchy we have here and which would take up efforts which would be better directed on the relevant regions and cities.
I suggest that this article should be merged into Italian Lake District, with a redirect put in place. Likewise for Lake Garda and Lake Como. Individual listings should be moved into the relevant City/Town articles as and when they get written. Tarr3n 10:09, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
We don't do categories, and this seems so vague as to be thoroughly useless anyway. Individual visa issues (Israel vs Arabs etc) are already covered on the country pages. Jpatokal 12:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)
Delete the category, certainly. It could be resurrected as a travel topic article, though probably it is best to just cover it in country articles. Pashley 19:51, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Delete. Best to discuss visa issues on the country page, and keep it all in one place – cacahuatetalk 20:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Keep I just added text and links to what had been a stub article. Much more useful now. SONORAMA 10:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)
First, it's a category, not an article; and second, details of countries' visa restrictions belong in the country articles. Jpatokal 11:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. Not an article. Visa Info. needs to be added to destination. 2old 14:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. Current practice is that categories are not used on Wikitravel. Note, however, that it would be great if we could re-visit that stance on Wikitravel talk:Categories as there are numerous uses for categories that could make our guides better. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. I suggested this category to allow prospective travellers to quickly and easily identify countries which apply special restrictions on travellers who have visited certain countries previously, or who carry passports from specific countries. This category was intended to be used in conjunction with a template for these warning (so the details would be held on the specific country's page, as per current practices) but in a more standardised and indexed fashion. -- Lucanos
For part A of that, discovering what restrictions apply for visiting a country, the "Get in" sections of individual country articles already handle the job.
Part B, listing what countries can/cannot be visited by the holder of a given passport, could conceivably be a set of travel topics if defined well enough, eg. "Travel restrictions for Israeli passport holders". But it's useless to have a category that means "somebody can't visit this country for some reason" -- is the US "travel restricted" because Cubans and North Koreans have a hard time visiting it? Jpatokal 01:35, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. Categories may not currently be widely used, but the referenced page supporting that stance has not had action in some time, and I created this category and it's associated template to try and add what I would think is value to the Wikitravel content. Admittedly, the filler text added to trhe Category page could be culled down, but I believe that the concept is sound and worthy of at least being given a fair trial. -- Lucanos 09:36, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. Wikitravel doesn't use categories, so it's a non-starter. If you feel strongly about it, try re-fashioning the information into a travel topic. Gorilla Jones 09:54, 15 December 2008 (EST)
I noticed on recent changes that someone had tagged this "vfd", but it was not listed here. I'm listing it now, though it appears to me to be a legitimate destination we should keep. Can someone who knows the area please chime in? Pashley 12:29, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
DELETE I marked it; I have actually been through this "town" which only has a name because of a Post Office, next to a railroad track. There is absolutely nothing of interest here (certainly no place to "sleep" which is a criteria). I believe someone added it to Wikitravel as a joke of some kind. Read the SEE section of the article. gamweb 12:35, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep. Peter, I believe you misinterpret the "can't sleep there" disqualification; it is intended to address places where it's not possible, or at least legal, to sleep (lakes, day-use parks, etc.), rather than towns lacking hotels. There was a big discussion of this about a year ago IIRC. This tiny town is no less a "destination" in that regard than any number of places in, say, North Dakota that we've always accepted as appropriate for an article. And gamweb, maybe there's nothing of interest to you, but the traveler whose Uncle Egbert lives there would still have reason to refer to Wikitravel before going to visit. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't remember this discussion, but this seems to me not a valid article no matter which way you slice it. I've checked this town, and there are no sights, no hotels/motels—only three establishments of any kind (all eateries/bars). I see no utility in a travel article to such a place. Another example off the top of my head is Pritchet, CO. There is one restaurant and one little shop. Anyone driving through the town will see them immediately (same goes for Dorothy), and can simply walk in and look at the menu. At most, a town/census designated area this small deserves no more than a mention in the get out section of a near town. If the traveler really needs advice on which of the three eateries to go to, he could just ask Uncle Egbert or anyone on the street. --PeterTalk 12:29, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree that the "can you sleep there" metric is intended to help delineate between "destinations" and "attractions", not between "destinations that get an article" and "destinations that don't". On the other hand, "Sleep" is a required section in any destination article, highlighting its importance. LtPowers 13:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep If we really want to be a travel guide for the world, I think we should waiver the demand for sleeping as far as actual cities is concerned. Juuuuuust my two cents Sertmann 17:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Is Uncle Egbert in any way related to Joe the Plumber? – cacahuatetalk 04:09, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Neutral. However, if there are three places to eat/drink here, somebody has to propose where they belong (county level?) if this is not held to be a "destination". Jpatokal 23:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)
As I see it, we're not a restaurant review site, we're a destination guide site; if a restaurant is in a town/village not worth writing about, we might as well not write about it. If we're dealing with a sparsely populated region in, say, Tusheti, and there's one nice restaurant in a small village, we should point that out either on the region page, or on a nearby town big enough to write about. But this is frikkin New Jersey!
The "can you sleep there" rule is useful for delimiting what we will and will not write about, so we avoid using up time categorizing non-destinations like this one, and avoid cluttering our site with non-useful information. It's a waste of space to subdivide regions and link to non-towns like this. The rule is also a convenient way to dismiss out of hand pages like this, which are not useful, and were created by a certain page-creation-troll precisely to waste our time in discussions like these. --PeterTalk 13:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Redirect to the county and move any worthwhile info in the article there. Pashley 20:04, 27 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure there's consensus here yet, but if there is, it's most likely for a keep. One last call for opinions, then I'll move on it tomorrow. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:28, 15 December 2008 (EST)
The text part has been fixed by the image's creator(?). What leads you to the conclusion that there's a copyvio? I'd incline to keep it now, unless the copyvio can be documented. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:02, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep. The text in the image has gone. The fact that the uploader removed it, would make it quite unlikely to be a copyvio. --Inas 22:41, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Comment - I believe the source of my copyvio suspicion may have been other verifiable copyvios in the same batch of uploads, though I could be mistaken. At any rate, it probably wouldn't have caught my attention at all if it hadn't had the text in the first place.
Does not appear to be anything more than a mountain pass, which shouldn't get its own article. Texugo 02:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
This is an interesting one. I'm not sure what to do with it, but this makes for interesting reading. --PeterTalk 02:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
How about making it a disambiguation page, noting to check out Gangtok#Get out if traveling from India to China, and then whatever Chinese town you come from to get there if crossing into India – cacahuatetalk 04:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Redirect to Gangtok. This is an attraction (of sorts...), not a destination, and it is the next step along the slippery slope down which we started with Panmunjeom. However, it's also high profile (like Panmunjeom), so having it accessible via search benefits the traveler, so redirect rather than delete. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:04, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Actually that's better, I forgot that it's not open to tourists for crossing, it's only for import/export purposes, so indeed, an attraction, but can't cross there – cacahuatetalk 00:03, 9 December 2008 (EST)
According to Wikipedia, it has been an abandoned camp since the early 1990s, the population is 0, and therefore one cannot sleep there. See Wikipedia article: . Could possibly redirect to Dalton Highway (a couple of miles away) or Bettles (population 39) 25 miles away, but no WT article yet. AHeneen 07:08, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Redirect. Dalton Highway would seem like a reasonable redirection target. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:16, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Merge into relevant city articles. Texugo 03:43, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Merge some here, delete the rest. Suggest the contributor try Hitchwiki who would probably want all of it. Put a link to Hitchwiki page in Romania article here. Pashley 07:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the hitchwiki tip, but please leave a link in the wikitravel romaniaarticle to the hitchwikisite, because most people dont know about hitchwiki!Deni120 04:38, 14 November 2008 (EST)
There are better ways of accommodating Hitchwiki (which can and should be discussed elsewhere, I'll try to get something started). Delete; this isn't a valid destination and lacks the comprehensive kind of information found in Hitchhiking in Japan to justify it as a Topic. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:42, 28 December 2008 (EST)
Article about a dam in India, have no Idea where to redirect, and I hardly think this is the Hoover dam anyway Sertmann 05:36, 13 November 2008 (EST)
It is mentioned on Nalgonda under See. Perhaps move the text and redirect. The text on the page does suggest there is, perhaps, some interest about the place. Nrms 05:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Ok merged the content into Nalgonda - but I'm still in support of a Delete
Because it was merged, we should change it into a redirect, maintaining the page history for attribution purposes. LtPowers 09:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)
It is a fairly well-known weekend getaway from Hyderabad. Lots of tourists. The article quality doesn't reflect the place's popularity. I'll be going there come the weekend of 29-30/11; will fill in an article then. —The preceding comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
But can you sleep there? LtPowers 15:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Even though you can sleep there, I favor a Redirect at this time. The article isn't anything remotely approaching the WT standard. If someone wants to make the redirect page into an actual article, that's fine, but lacking one, having the article for search engines to find, but not messing around with something badly misformatted, etc., seems best. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)