Speedy delete. --PeterTalk 11:13, 22 November 2010 (EST)
Delete — I agree with Ryan's reasons. It is possible though unlikely that a guide to world beaches could be developed as a travel topic, but this is not it. Does anyone actually plan a trip based on the beaches alone? Like, lets go to Skilpadvrekvandiedorsfontein, it has a great beach. There is nothing else within 100 miles, but who cares, the beach is nice... Surf, yes, definitely, surfers will endure great hardship for a good wave, but that is not the beach, it is the wave break that is important. • • • Peter (Southwood)Talk 02:57, 23 November 2010 (EST)
People certainly do plan trips around beaches. That doesn't mean they don't want amenities nearby, but the beach is still the focus. LtPowers 09:46, 23 November 2010 (EST)
Speedy delete. --felix 13:25, 28 November 2010 (EST)
Result: Deleted - Texugo 22:23, 12 December 2010 (EST)
Appears to be self promotion of 'Munnar Carmelagiri Elephant Park who operates an elephant safari park in Munnar.
This looks like a legitimate attraction of Munnar and would best be described in detail in that article rather than in a separate one.
I nominate the article for deletion and for the useful content to be moved across to the Munnar article. felix 09:03, 10 December 2010 (EST)
Highway article started with copyrighted material, which I removed. I don't know if this would be a good candidate for someone to write an itinerary about, but until someone speaks up and starts writing an itinerary, I think it should just be deleted.
Started 3 years ago not as an itinerary but as a simple list of states and cities that the highway passes through, two thirds of which have no article. It couldn't make a very logical itinerary because the highway itself is extremely long and is broken into non-contiguous sections and furthermore, it skirts many of the bigger nearby regional destination/attractions that most travellers wouldn't want to miss (Florianópolis, São Paulo, Salvador, etc.) The places along the highway for which we have articles are already linked by routebox navigation, so this article is essentially useless and unnecessary.
Having a border is no reason to delete. But TinEye found a match on the (defunct) horse safari web site, so it likely isn't freely licensed. LtPowers 16:52, 1 December 2010 (EST)
Borders have been used before as reasons to delete and I've never seen anyone defend a bordered image. At their best, they look too commercial, and at their worst, they ruin the picture. They always look inappropriate for Wikitravel, in my opinion. ChubbyWimbus 01:01, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Delete. All three appear to be promotional in nature, which is typically reason for deletion - the first image was uploaded by a user apparently trying to promote a specific resort, and the other two are obvious. With respect to the border, in the past borders have been used as a rationale to delete otherwise questionable images since it's not standard Wikitravel style, particularly when the original uploader is not around to provide a non-bordered image. One further point - please list articles & images separately on this page in the future. As this discussion shows, because one nomination was made for three separate images we are now forced to have three separate discussions in the same thread. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:13, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Borders and text on the images can be removed quite easily by cropping the edges. I can do this if the images are worth keeping. They dont seem to have a copyleft listed on the file description page, or have explicitly been uploaded without one. • • • Peter (Southwood)Talk 05:11, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Just to clarify, past VFDs have cited borders as a contributing reason to delete questionable images. We often have images from users where the source isn't entirely clear, the purpose of the image isn't clear, etc, and in those cases a border has been cited as a contributing factor towards deletion of the image. In this case, the fact that the image in question appears to have been uploaded for promotional purposes AND has a border (and is thus not standard Wikitravel style) are both reasons to consider deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:19, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Yes, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear; the border can be removed with ease, which is why there's no reason to delete it just because it has a border. LtPowers 08:02, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Sorry for uploading all of them together! I did it because they are all from the same user, so I thought discussion would revolve around them as a group, as well. If they are violations from a website, then perhaps the rest of this users images should also be deleted. I think there were only a few more. ChubbyWimbus 18:59, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:15, 24 December 2010 (EST)