It may occur from time to time that we delete an article by mistake -- that is, that the article doesn't actually meet the standards for deleting articles listed on the VFD page. In this case, a Wikitraveller should link to the page on this page, with an explanation of why the deletion wasn't in accordance with our deletion policy. Articles and images are still considered guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page. Otherwise, the page will stay deleted.
So. I do not accept the deletion of this image, and I would like anybody who is still in favor of deleting it — currently only Nils? — to a) explain exactly what they find objectionable, and b) suggest how to fix it. Jpatokal 12:46, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Firstly, there wasn't consensus to keep the picture, which is the standard we have for v.f.d. I count 3 people (myself, Colin, Nils) who said to delete it, and 3 (you, Hans, and Pierre) who said to keep it. (I archived the v.f.d. discussion at Image talk:Nativity Monk.JPG.) The main problem is that it is a picture of a person, which is contrary to our image use policy. In addition, the photographer doesn't have a verbal or written model release, which violates the privacy rights of the model. You've put forward the argument that the person is not recognizable, but I think that's not the case (it's a caucasian male, early 30s, about 5'8" or so, dark brown hair, full beard, average complexion). It's beside the point, in any event, since there's nothing in our policy that says it's OK to have people if they're not recognizable. The monk is very clearly the subject of the picture -- he didn't accidentally walk in the way as the photographer was shooting those two loudspeakers, a short stairway, and 1/8th of an arch. Needless to say, the image name suggests that the monk is the subject. Another point is that he's engaged in an extremely private activity -- prayer -- and was not part of any group (a concert, a protest). Finally, I don't think the photo has particular travel relevance -- travellers aren't going to be able to go to that church and find that same monk praying, anyways. It's a really great photograph, but it's just not appropriate for an Open Content travel guide. The photographer may be able to avoid a privacy rights lawsuit if his lawyer makes a good argument before a judge, but this isn't a court of law. This is a collaborative project, and the entire group has to agree that publishing this picture is worth the risk, however small. I, for one, think it's not. To fix it, I'd suggest using an actual photo of the church in question, without people in it, or if needed a crowd scene which doesn't focus on a particular person. [On a personal note, I want you to know that the deletion of this picture does not in any way signal a lack of appreciation for your excellent work on Wikitravel. You are one of the best and most dedicated people here, and your very generous donation of high-quality photographs has raised the visual standard of Wikitravel several notches. I hope you understand that making exceptions in the rules based on who makes the contribution is a very slippery slope.] --Evan 13:37, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
I prefer this stay deleted. First, it has some hypothetical legal risk (as I mentioned in vfd). Second, it's helpful to be consistent with policy. Third, I don't see this as a "must have" image since people don't go to Bethlehem because it has a pretty chapel — so I don't feel willing to accept risks to keep it. It's nice, but the article will be fine without it (unlike, for example, Image:Okayama Castle Hilltop.JPG which is extremely illustrative of the location and jaw-dropping gorgeous to boot). -- Colin 14:50, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
I think all the controversy and back and forth over the ethical/legal aspects of showing the person should just be gently pushed aside by the practical issues, just to get out of deadlock. This photo is currently not used in any article, it doesn't recognizably depict any specific travel destination, nor do I think it even shows a unique "slice of life" of the culture/destination it depicts. I don't think anyone could, just by looking at the photo, even place the continent it's from. There is certainly nothing objectionable to it. It's an excellent photo, with good composition and interesting matter, but it's just not a travel photo. Delete. -- Paul Richter 21:26, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Um, it is used by Bethlehem and (IMHO) represents a pretty darn good summary of what the town is about. Some strange bug (probably due to reuploading the file under the same name) prevents it from being listed as a link though. Jpatokal 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Anyway, while I still disagree with the reasoning above, at least there's some consensus against now and I'll bow to it gracefully. But before I shut up, y'all will have to pick a new image to replace Mr. Monk from here:
My favorites are this and this but somehow I doubt those will pass privacy police scrutiny either. This is postcard-y but gives the wrong impression (nobody goes to Bethlehem for the mosques). This is a nice picture but doesn't really say very much... this and this are uglier but give some idea (and hey, the church is ugly too). Or maybe just this or that for that warm and fuzzy "Welcome to Bethlehem!" feeling. Jpatokal 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
OK, I think we can easily agree on this one: Elvis Sheik!! Seriously, I think some of the Old Town or Manger Square scenes would be good if you have some that aren't as politically charged. --Paul Richter 04:06, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Unfortunately the King was spotted not in Bethlehem, but in the legendary Elvis Diner on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway... a destination in itself, I might add. But "not politically charged" is a pretty tough call for an occupied war zone in these days of intifada, the last time I visited (Apr 2003) I traveled by armored car. And the pics in the link above are all I have. Jpatokal 04:19, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Undelete. We reached the consensus that monastery can be an exemption for what constitutes an article. Windhorse (I believe) was working on this article. - Sapphire.
I deleted this one - there was one vote in favor of keeping it on the Wikitravel:Votes for deletion and several against. The article itself had no content other than a vfd notice, despite it having been on the site for a few weeks. Also, I don't see anything on Wikitravel talk:What is an article? saying that this particular monastery should be kept or should not be listed as an attraction. If we need an article for this monastery in the future it can be re-created, but until then I think it was properly deleted and should stay that way. -- Ryan 02:52, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
Yeah, this kind of looks like a fair deletion. Monasteries can be articles sometimes, but it wasn't clear that this one was. --Evan 02:55, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
I've never actually seen this article, so I don't know how great it was, but I came across a conversation on this article with someone asking us to keep it. I figured I'd throw it up here in case an error was made. It's not possible to see what it looked like prior deletion, right? Sapphire 02:58, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
Nevermind. I didn't read Ryan's note. If there was nothing on it then void my asking for the "undeletion." Sapphire 03:00, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
We need information on ferries around Mediterranean (or at least between the key destinations in Greece), and Ferries in the Mediterranean was the first attempt to gather such info that I can remember at Wikitravel.
Earlier we have removed an extlink to a third-party source of schedules and routes available for Greece alone (see Talk:Greece#ferry schedule and routes). But if we also don't allow such info to be gathered by Wikitravelers--and we don't have an official one-stop source for such info, it's quite strange for me.
I did travel around Greek islands, and it was really a nightmare to find any online source of information that give enough information even for my individual route--and yes, finally I turned to Lonely Planet (which helped a bit, but did not allow to complete my task).
It's really pity for me that I couldn't vote to keep it earlier, so I vote for undeletion.
I've gone over the original VFD discussion and still have the same main concern. We do not need a useless list of contacts.
If you are however willing to put in the effort to turn this into a real travel topic then I'll definitely support an Undelete. I do think this can be useful provided that it does not try to be overly detailed, i.e. specifying the departure times of each and every ferry from each and every port is not a good idea since those are subject to frequent changes that will never be updated in WT.
You might also want do consider a rename if this is undeleted. Ferries in the Mediterranean invites people to turn it into an ugly long list, something like Travel the Mediterranean by Ferry suggest that there should be more to the article. --Nick 02:00, 7 February 2008 (EST)
Outcome: Undeleted --Nick 05:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)
I'm happy to see that the page I started a year ago, which was deleted, is revived again. -- Eiland 13:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm still not sure whether this should have been deleted (I nominated it), and I'm not sure exactly what to do with it. But I just noticed it's one of the nine "other destinations" on the country page for Norway. That gives me additional pause. Anyway, I'll just leave this vfu up here and see if anyone has any good ideas. --PeterTalk 02:10, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I'm going to give a firm Undelete. Trollstigen, as I understand it, is a road leading through a fjord of the same name. We have plenty of other pages for fjords, and treat them as regions. I think we could convert this one pretty easily. --PeterTalk 02:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
All the above were deleted on or about 26 February 2009 by User:Peterfitzgerald with the comment copyvio. While I applaude efforts to rid Wikitravel of spam, I think these deletions need discussion. The articles are probably valid as names (bar one on the basis of capitalisations) but are merely orphaned pages that are copyright violations. I thought we preferred to fix rather than delete such articles. An attention grabbing template is called Template:Copyvio and articles could be tagged this way rather than being deleted on sight - unless there is a website take down law in effect that now requires us to take down copyright violations pre-emptively before the website needs to be taken down - which I understand is about to happen here in New Zealand.... We could at least replace the bad articles with empty templates. - Huttite 09:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)
No need to go through process on this one; just "speedy undelete," remove the text that was there (it's all copyrighted), and integrate it into our geographical hierarchy. I deleted them in part to save time cleaning up the copyvios (going through each subsection and deleting text takes longer), and as an attention-getter for the user. --PeterTalk 09:33, 25 February 2009 (EST)
Deleting them is an easy way to get rid of the copyright-violating text and excise it from the history. If someone wishes to recreate them with a template, I see no reason not to. LtPowers 10:45, 25 February 2009 (EST)
Albacete and Trujillo (Spain) have both been recreated by the original user, complete with all the copyright violating text, all over again. What policy says we should be deleting the specific edits containing copyright violations? Because if there isn't one, we should be restoring the origial edits too. Though if there is one then we should be deleting those edits consistently - which we are not doing at present. - Huttite 04:49, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I don't understand what you mean by "restoring the [original] edits". LtPowers 13:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Maybe Xcaret is a privately-owned park, but it is also a natural area in Mexico's southeast. It has all the facilities to be considered a park. I did this page cause I think many people looks for it. In fact, spanish version doesn't have any problem, but editors of english version of Wikitravel want to delete it. I would want to know why if Disneyland has its own page, Xcaret can't. Because Disney is also a privately-owned park, and instead, Xcaret has very different purposes, such as nature preservation, and it is in fact an ecopark, a Wikitravel pages cathegory. The text is mine, photos are mine, so I can't find a reason to delete it. —The preceding comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) .
^ previous discussion, please don't edit that page.
One of the general rules for parks is that they don't get their own page if you can't sleep there. Xcarat is a day-trip destination with the only lodging offsite. By comparison, DW is a large complex with sleeping on-site; it occupies a strange middle ground between "park" and "small city" rarely found elsewhere. Generally the parks template is for something more like Glacier National Park. As it is, Xcarat hardly seems to merit an entire article of its own even if you could sleep there -- it reads much more like a promo brochure at the moment.
Also, there is no Xcarat page on the Spanish Wikitravel: . There may be one on Wikipedia, but that is a different site with different goals and has no bearing on this discussion. - Dguillaime 13:36, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
Redirect (as has already been done). Looking at http://www.xcaret.com/ this place is either a resort or a theme park, and thus doesn't meet the criteria set forth Wikitravel:What is an article. We make exceptions occasionally, but given the vast amount of resort spam we end up dealing with for Cancun I think the bar needs to be a bit higher as to why one particular resort there deserves its own article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:50, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
I was about to move Grundy, Virginia (Buchanan County) to Grundy and noticed it had previously been speedily deleted by OldPine on 31 May 2008. However, I cannot find any deletion discussion, so since the article has been recreated I am undeleting the original article version too. -- Huttite 08:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
There may be precedent that is discussed on the talk page, but the speedy deletion procedure for page creation vandalism that is discussed on the talk page has not been written into the deletion policy. I was following the policy, which asks for at least a simple check that the page could potentially be a destination. I must admit I too was initially suspected that Plainville was merely vandalism, but when I checked Wikipedia, and did a google search, I was most surprised to discover it was not just one real place but several places, in two different countries, on two different continents! The name alone probably makes it a tourist destination. I concluded that the article was a likely destination and created a disambiguation page. To then discover the original page had been deleted from underneath me was most annoying, so I saved my work, restored the original contribution, to be fair to the original contributor, and challenged the deletion here. - Huttite 04:53, 12 January 2010 (EST)
I agree. I think "pages created with no intention of adding actual content to them" may be a valid speedy criterion, but it needs to be written into policy. Having the procedure questioned by every new user who notices it, thus forcing the wise veteran sages who implemented the pseudo-policy have to continually link to pcv, is inefficient and somewhat baffling. LtPowers 09:04, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Nonsense. Reverting trolling is about as straightforward a policy and practice as we have. All that should be needed to coordinate administrative efforts in dealing with trolling is to link to the history of this trolling, the discussions that established how we deal with it. The point of this trolling is to waste our time, and it is as successful as we collectively are stupid. --PeterTalk 11:09, 12 January 2010 (EST)
It's straightforward for those who recognize the trolling. But it's not obvious to the novice and a simple note in the policy document would be a concise way to reflect current consensus. LtPowers 13:35, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Right, but we don't actually want to discourage people from creating new outline articles—it's just this particular user is creating such outlines in bad faith, often with false or misleading content, or for destinations he thinks shouldn't have articles. Hard cases make bad law, as they say. --PeterTalk 13:45, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Well I don't know how you tell this one user from any other. LtPowers 15:49, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Still, no harm adding to the policy that articles with no travel content identified as page creation vandalism can be speedy deleted. This sets no precedent, and they can be recreated with legitimate travel content at any time subsequently. In the deletion comment, just note that it was speedy deleted as pcv, and then everyone is on the same page. --inas 18:03, 12 January 2010 (EST)
The vast majority of empty page creations are by new users trying to find out if the destination they are looking for can be accessed by that link, or are simply trying out their first steps on contributing to a wiki. Better to just link pcv in the edit summary.
And regarding the undeletion here, I think it's perfectly fine in this type of case for someone to just go right ahead and re-create an article if they think it worthwhile. --PeterTalk 19:08, 12 January 2010 (EST)