Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.
New users, please see Help or go to the Pub to ask questions.

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/May 2011

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive for Wikitravel:Votes for deletion acted on in May 2011. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/April 2011 or Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/June 2011 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.


Atlanterhavsveien[edit]

A scenic road only 5.2 miles long (even though it's a popular tourist attraction.) –sumone10154 23:24, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete - texugo 09:26, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
  • Redirect since it is a plausible search term. I'm not sure to where. Pashley 04:57, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
  • If it's to be redirected, maybe redirect to Møre og Romsdal, the region that contains the towns at either end of the road (Molde and Kristiansund). There is a little on the page about it already. - Cardboardbird 10:34, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
  • Result: Redirected to Møre og Romsdal

Walking the Royal Road in Warsaw[edit]

  • Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since 2009, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
  • I'd say keep this, but it seems anything that could be said is already said, so the article possibly won't get any longer, so Merge with Warsaw#See or Warsaw#Do, since, if I took the right path through Warsaw article's somewhat messy district system, it extends over three districts of the city (Warsaw/Śródmieście, Warsaw/Mokotów, Warsaw/Wilanów). Perhaps a link from Warsaw/Wilanów#Get in would be nice, since that's the southern terminus of the route and the most suburban type of those three districts. – Vidimian 12:28, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
What in particular should be merged? The existing itinerary article is just a handful of names of tourist attractions listed in bullet point with no descriptions, addresses, or other particularly useful information. I suppose we could (for example) verify that "Warsaw University" is listed in the appropriate Warsaw district article, but without anything to say about the university it doesn't seem like a merge is a particularly worthwhile effort. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:00, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
The "walking distances" paragraph of "Go/Walk/Drive/..." section is, as I see it, possibly the whole point of creating an itinerary article. Listing the attractions in appropriate district articles, while great, does not usually provide the users with the distances of the attractions relative to each other, nor does it offer users a particular route that makes sure the user "touches" the interesting sights on the way; at least not without good quality maps. And for what it's worth, the article starts with "... is a symbolic path ...", and there is a short Wikipedia article about it, which made me assume that this is a common route taken by at least a fraction of travellers, but of course I can very well be mistaken at that. – Vidimian 13:27, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
Addressing your two points: 1) I very much agree that go/walk/drive is the point of an itinerary, but in cases where there is not at least a minimally viable route structure the deletion policy was modified to allow removal - someone can always create a new article later, but without at least a complete route it's near impossible to develop an article. 2) For cases like the Royal Road that are apparently signposted or at least well known routes I'd agree, but in cases where it isn't clear that a route really is a common destination for travelers I think we should err on the side of deletion given the "one year at outline status" guideline - someone can always recreate the article if it's needed, but without some cleanup we'll end up with articles for every road, trail, etc that's out there, which is out of scope for Wikitravel and of not helpful towards the goal of producing "useful" travel guides. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:55, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
Any further comment? -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:49, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
Since this hasn't achieved the "consensus to keep" my inclination would still be to resolve as a delete, but since the discussion is still ambiguous further comment would be appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:42, 23 April 2011 (EDT)
Looking at this more closely, as an alternative to deletion, what about a redirect to Warsaw? -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:44, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
I would say that a redirect is only appropriate if there is to be mention of the "Royal Road" in the Warsaw article. Otherwise, the redirect will only annoy people trying to find out about this route. ChubbyWimbus 23:56, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
I think a redirect would be completely pointless because it isn't a likely search term. If people are looking for info about the road, they aren't going to search for "Walking the Royal Road in Warsaw". I'd say delete it and, assuming there is a mention in the Warsaw article, put an {{otheruses}} tag in the Brazilian Royal Road that points there. texugo 00:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:12, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Overland from Singapore to Shanghai[edit]

  • Did we ever settle the questions about itinerary overlap that came up at Wikitravel_talk:Itineraries#Should_itineraries_overlap.3F and I think elsewhere?
  • Should we just move this one to Overland Bangkok to Shanghai if that is what its surviving children cover? Pashley 05:09, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
    • Would such an article would be useful? That article would simply be two links to children, which is not particularly helpful and (IMHO) sets a bad precedent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:49, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
      • Since this hasn't achieved the "consensus to keep" my inclination would still be to resolve as a delete, but since the discussion is still ambiguous further comment would be appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:42, 23 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:21, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Images from User:Amelise[edit]

Images uploaded in 2007 of questionable quality or are policy violations for not being uploaded to shared. Cardboardbird 09:53, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

-- Ryan • (talk) • 12:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
-- Date stamps are unattractive but can often be quickly remedied by applying some image editing. I do not mind doing this if there is a particularly good image marred in this way. However the upside down poorly exposed, blurred and poorly colour balanced shot of the gecko has no merit as far as I can see. Get rid of the lot of them, with the possible exception of

Result: Deleted:

Kept:

-- Ryan • (talk) • 21:31, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Image:Charlie Globe-Jotter.JPG[edit]

  • Delete. This image was uploaded to English Wikitravel rather than shared, and while exceptions to the "all uploads must go to shared:" rule can possibly be made for images that will only be used on English Wikitravel user pages, this user image has not been used on a user page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:15, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:59, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

P90X Program[edit]

Article entirely consists of a page of marketing copy titled; "How To Stay Determined To Finish The P90X Program" "P90X program is an extreme workout system that pushes you beyond your preconceived limits...." The only contributor is User:Eliseo19cotton1, Special:Contributions/Eliseo19cotton1

  • Speedy delete Inappropriate article content and not in the interests of the traveller. Contains 100% marketing content. -- felix 13:29, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Www.marinedriveecr.com[edit]

No own page for a restaurant and no URL like pagenames. --Rein N. 04:52, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy deleted jan 05:12, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Ag-Af100 - How To Buy A Camcorder[edit]

Article is not associated to Wikitravel.

  • Speedied - texugo 00:43, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Contact[edit]

Created by User:Jcpal. Only content is a frontlinked url http://www.rvcny.us/

  • Delete Not of any value to the traveller. felix 16:14, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
  • The link points to what seems to be an official site for a village government. We do not have an article on the village. If we did, I'd say move the link there, since it is a primary source & legitimate link, and then delete this. Does anyone know the area well enough to say if creating an article for the village is worthwhile? If it is, please either create a stub or suggest that to the user. Pashley 08:38, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
Hi Pashley, The external link is associated with edits performed by User:Jcpal on the Rockville Centre article. User:Jcpal has used the link there. It is to the local gov office associated with[ [Rockville Centre]]. See the edit history for detail. User:Jcpal has also been doing some editing on Nassau_County. The Contact article is probably a mistake by a new and apparently single purpose editor. An article titled Contact should be deleted as it is misleading and an apparent misadventure. -- felix 09:09, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:18, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Image:Cham basket weavers.jpg[edit]

Recognizable people. texugo 10:14, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:18, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages