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

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 397: Line 397:
  
 
===[[Singapore/Central]]===
 
===[[Singapore/Central]]===
Rather pointless meta-region, all the information within has been merged into Singapore and its other districts. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 00:52, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
+
* Rather pointless meta-region, all the information within has been merged into Singapore and its other districts. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 00:52, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 +
* Delete. You know the region better than me, so I trust you. -- [[User:Ilkirk|Ilkirk]] 09:15, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  
 
[[de:Wikitravel:Bitte löschen]]
 
[[de:Wikitravel:Bitte löschen]]

Revision as of 13:19, 27 July 2006

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.

Contents

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. If the article or image meets the deletion criteria, do any preparatory work (like orphaning an image, or combining the article with one it duplicates) prior to listing it here.
  3. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
  4. 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.

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 you feel that way. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

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 copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

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.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy 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).

July 2006

Yagger

  • Delete, possibly speedy. A quick search doesn't find any place with this name. Brought to us by the same user who brought us "Red" and other fun might-be-a-place-can-you-look-it-up-for-me destinations. The author even put it on the vfd page after creating. -- Ryan 13:03, 13 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Is it here? -- Jonboy 19:01, 13 July 2006 (EDT)
      • Probably; the kid lives in Maine. But just because he found this word on a map doesn't mean it's a valid article topic. Keep in mind that Wikitravel is not meant to be an atlas, but a travel guide, so specks on the map that will never be able to fill out Template:smallcity (which is what this appears to be) should not be the subjects of articles. Delete. - Todd VerBeek 00:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I don't think he can read a map.... but he's long since run out of actual city names and has started making sh guessing placenames. -- Colin 02:41, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect either to Oxford County or to Maine. ~ 125.24.4.216 09:00, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Bogus "place", and worse yet, no article about it. 24.34.195.0 15:50, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Template:Skeleton

Yellow Head

  • Delete. Created by article creation troll. Wikipedia has no such place in Maine... although it does have WikiPedia:Yellow Head written by the same idiot. -- Colin 02:35, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:08, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. This one doesn't even show up in PlacesNamed.com. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • comment do you have to call me a idiot? i'm just trying to help.
  • Keep. See below. If it's Yellow, let it mellow. There is in fact a village named Yellow Head in Maine, see the geonames.org search. --Evan 12:27, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • comment thank you
  • But is there a destination named Yellow Head? Just because there's a dot on the map for it doesn't mean that it's worthwhile writing an article about it. We don't want to list every hotel and restaurant in a city; why would we want to list every census-designated crossroads in a county? - Todd VerBeek 13:31, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Agreed, we don't want to list every village. What do you know about Yellow Head? I don't know anything about it. Argument from ignorance is not only a bad way to make decisions, but it's also obviously unfair. Let's go the extra yard to see what we can do to include contributions. --Evan 13:45, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
      • I disagree. The guy who creates these articles is obviously purposefully ignoring policy and exploiting the fact that it takes work to discuss and delete questionable article topics. That's not in doubt. While he doesn't particularly bug me in any way, and in some cases might even be helpful in promoting discussions such as this one, I don't think it's fair that we should have to assume good faith with each of his edits and then describe as "ignorant" someone's argument that since a quick search indicates a place is not a worthwhile destination that it's a candidate for deletion. While you may see that as arguing from ignorance, many of the rest of us see it as Fixing broken windows. I vote delete on this article, and it can always be recreated later if someone who knows the area and honestly thinks it's a worthwhile destination wants to do so. -- Ryan 14:22, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
        • I did not mean that Colin is ignorant; I'm sorry if it came across that way. By all means, I'm well aware that Colin is about as smart as they come. "Argument from ignorance" is the technical term in rhetoric for the logical fallacy that states that if you don't know something is true, then it is necessarily false. My point was that we should hold fire until we know that Yellow Head isn't worth having an article about.
          On the subject of the contributor: his or her trollosity is totally immaterial to whether this is a good article, and we demean ourselves by wondering. Regardless of whether the person deserves it, we can maintain our dignity and good reputation by treating them with respect. The person in question will eventually drift off, but our angry words will stay here for years. Our anonymous friend's reputation on Wikitravel does not matter; yours and mine do.
          As far as I can tell from my reading, Yellow Head is an uninhabited island in Machias Bay, also known as "Yellow Island" for its 75-foot yellow bluff. It doesn't show up in the US Census database or Gazetteer. I think it might make a good attraction for Bucks Harbor but is not notable enough for its own article. --Evan 15:09, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
          • My rule of thumb is that if a US city isn't in Wikipedia, it probably doesn't exist in a meaningful way. That's why I mentioned Wikipedia in the nom. The Census data is full of bogus placenames that aren't anything more than an unusual dense rural area. The trollosity is relevant: if this came from Joe Average IPAddress, I would just assume they knew the area well and felt it worth an article. In other words, I don't even check if the place exists for the average contributor, for the troll, I do. But that's the whole extent of the prejudice against the troll.-- Colin 15:27, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
          • I didn't think you were calling Colin ignorant, but you did accuse him of making an argument based on ignorance, which I don't think is the case. Colin made the decision to VFD an article based on the fact that searching WikiPedia and Google did not reveal any useful information, and also based on the fact that the creator likes to create questionable articles. In this case I think the "trollosity" is very relevant as it casts doubt on the validity of the contributor's additions - we have guidelines for a reason, and articles created by a user who not only ignores those guidelines but purposefully tries to find corner cases are much more likely to be VFD candidates. In any case, the point here is that we have a contributor who likes to ignore policy, and I don't think it's fair that each of his creations needs to be heavily scrutinized by looking at satellite data and such. A search on WikiPedia and Google should be sufficient to determine VFD or not, and in the future if someone who is not ignorant about the area comes along and wants to create a useful article, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. -- Ryan 15:33, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
            • All right. All I can do is ask that you don't call contributors names like "troll" or "idiot". People in positions of authority disrespecting contributors, even if they are in the right, looks bad for the project. I'd appreciate if you didn't, but it's obviously up to you. --Evan 15:58, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
              • I've changed my wording. -- Ryan 16:07, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
      • What do I know? I know that Google finds no references to ("Yellow Head" and "Maine") that refer to a city or an address. There are several references to a geographic feature, which is either an island or slight protruberance on a peninsula (they give conflicting info). I know from the coordinates in your link above and satellite images that there is no discernable development at that location, just a road nearby that might have a residence or several on it (which would account for it being listed as "populated", despite apparently having nothing to See, Do, Eat, or Drink). It's hard to prove that something (i.e. an actual travel destination) doesn't exist (as you seem to demand), but after a bit of looking, the lack of evidence that it does exist starts to get pretty persuasive. If someone wants me to believe an article is a valid travel destination. I have a simple, (I think) reasonable requirement: Show me. Put information in it. An article about a blink-and-you-miss-it crossroads with information about an inn that serves beer and burgers may be worth keeping, because that could be useful information. An emtpy stub with no such information and no detectible hope of ever having any... is not. - Todd VerBeek 15:07, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
        • Yes, as far as I can tell it's at best a crossroads. Using the satellite images is a good idea. --Evan 15:11, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Uninhabited or barely-inhabited island. --Evan 15:11, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'll add to Bucks Harbor. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. So that it doesn't get re-created later, I've converted it into a disambiguation page. ~ 125.24.4.216 10:06, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Err, I'm not sure why it would make a good dismabiguation page as opposed to a redirect to the closest destination? I dont think we want to start doing disambigs for non-destinations. Anyone second the redirect over disambig? Majnoona 10:28, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Comment This lists Yellow Head as a city with an estimated population of 533, at a different lat/lon than the island. I'm not saying the place is a notable destination, but inability to find something with google is not evidence it doesn't exist. The town is in Lincoln County, near Pemaquid Point Lighthouse. 141.213.54.38 17:47, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
    • The inability to find something in Google is a huge blinking red flag that it is not signficant enough to be the subject of a Wikitravel article. - Todd VerBeek 18:28, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Driving in Portland, Maine

  • Delete. Created by article creation troll. Evan made this a redirect, but I see no reason for this to exist. -- Colin 02:39, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:08, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:15, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • whats wrong with driving in portland? routes and so forth
  • The "Get around" section of the city article should describe the basics about getting around the city. Anything more than that is more detail than a travel guide should bother with. - Todd VerBeek 13:33, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Evan 15:28, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not a big enough city/topic for it's own article. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

Pasta in italy

  • Currently a redirect to Italy, but... 125.24.4.216 13:23, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • I think it's fine/harmless as a redirect. We haven't been too pickey about keeping typo redirects around. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

Route 77

Route 1

  • Delete. Not an article. -- Colin 14:15, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Highway_1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.166.2 (talkcontribs) 14:16, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
    • You must not have read the reason I provided. Highways do not automatically get articles, unlike cities. -- Colin 14:17, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. 24.34.195.0 15:53, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Redirect to U.S. Highway 1 Tom Holland (xltel) 12:58, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Delete. Yes, there's a US 1 article (which btw was vfd'ed some months ago, escaped by the skin of its teeth, and hasn't developed much since then). Given the zillions of other places that have a "Route 1" -- pretty much every state of the US will have a SR 1, nearly all countries with numbered roads will have one -- a disambig page might make more sense than a redirect, if any of the others merit articles. (Hm -- somebody really should do an "M1" itinerary covering Russia, Belarus and Poland...) But until that's needed, just get rid of the thing, as it's clearly redundant as it stands. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:15, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Route 95

Route 77

Route 62

Route 93

  • Delete. Not an article. -- Colin 14:15, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. 24.34.195.0 15:53, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, speedily, along with the others like it (exception for Route 1, as above). -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:18, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Route 95

Route 88

Route 8

Driving on route 95

Portland International Jetport

Bird Cage

  • Delete. Not an actual place in the usual sense. -- Colin 14:25, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. 24.34.195.0 15:53, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Zara

so? keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.166.2 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

  • Keep. "the district of Zara in the Turkish province of Sivas" Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. If it doesn't warrant its own article, redirect to the article to which it belongs. ~ 125.24.4.216 14:52, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Yagerville

Long Island (Maine)

Tatnic

  • Delete. Doesn't have a wikipedia entry, so it's either a spelling error (what, again?) or too small to reckon with. -- Colin 14:49, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • It looks like it's a mountain bike trail in Maine. Maybe worth a redirect? Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect to York County (Maine). ~ 125.24.4.216 06:20, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Zerkel

  • Delete. Doesn't have a wikipedia entry, so it's either a spelling error (what, again?) or too small to reckon with. -- Colin 14:49, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • There's a Zerkel, MN, but it doesn't seem to have anywhere to sleep. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect either to Clearwater County (Minnesota) or to Minnesota ~ 125.24.4.216 14:28, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Fort Williams

  • Delete. Attraction, not article. Content not worth saving. -- Colin 15:16, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Probably to vague for a redirect unless someone can think of a famous Fort Williams. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect to Fort William (disambiguation) Fort William ~ 125.24.4.216 04:21, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Agree with the revised redirect. We've kept far more flagrant misspellings than this one. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:18, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Fort William (disambiguation) had only one valid destination on it (it's VFDed below), and the "Fort Williams" that this presumably refers to (it's near where the kid lives) is just a locally-known fort (an attraction), not a destination. - Todd VerBeek 17:29, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Mosquito Lake

  • Delete. May be a valid destination, but doesn't look like it. I think our friend may merely be picking cities with very tiny populations from [1], but who knows. -- Ryan 16:51, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I'd give it a redirect, but there's more than one place with a Mosquito Lake. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect or disambiguate. If it exists and there's only one, redirect it to the article that covers that territory; if there's more than one, disambiguate. ~ 125.24.4.216 02:24, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Orange (New Hampshire)

  • Delete. May be a valid destination, but more than likely not. -- Ryan 16:53, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It's a town[2] and they have a state park, but doesn't appear to have any where to sleep... This ones getting closer to what we're looking for... Majnoona 21:26, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect to Grafton County (New Hampshire) or to New Hampshire. ~ 125.24.4.216 02:19, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Just voting on principal here. I've read the deletion policy twice and don't see how this fits. It's a valid town. Policy doesn't seem to require that one can sleep there. One could sleep in a nearby town and visit the place anyways. Yeah, it's a little pissant place of little interest, but is there policy that covers it? What if someone's RVing or hiking around and wants to know about this place that's coming up? OldPine 13:09, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • I'm switching to Keep on this one. You're right Old Pine, there's room for all towns! Majnoona 14:14, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Zuber

  • Delete. Page creation troll, Wikipedia does not concur that this place exists and/or merits mention. -- Colin
  • Delete. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. So that it doesn't get re-created later, I've converted it into a disambiguation page. ~ 125.24.4.216 05:35, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A disambiguation page that lists a few places there aren't even articles for is not useful. Not every junk article name needs to be redirected to protect against re-creation; only ones that might be recreated in good faith do. - Todd VerBeek 09:40, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Zion Hill

  • Delete. Page creation troll, Wikipedia does not concur that this place exists and/or merits mention. -- Colin
  • Delete. Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
  • It does exist and it is in Florida [3] as the creator noted, however, it apparently is quite small and the are many more Zion Hills in the U.S. [4]. I don't think this constitutes a need for an article so I vote delete. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 02:26, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect either to Leon County (Florida) or to Florida. ~ 125.24.4.216 04:26, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Ram Island

  • Delete. Private island; not a destination. Majnoona 12:05, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect, so that it won't be created again, as it appears to already have been deleted on a previous occasion - see Talk:Ram_Island dated 31 March 2006 - ~ 125.24.4.216 12:33, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Redirect sounds good. I could maybe get behind this if it had some content. I was with a company that did work on a lighthouse here and the crew stayed on the island (though its almost too small) when there was no storm. But with no content there's no point. Certainly not much call from travelers and we don't want to be sending folks there. OldPine 14:54, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Pumpkins Notch

  • Speedy? Was deleted previously [5] Majnoona 12:05, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Or, as it apparently does exist and it's been created/deleted before, redirect it (to Maine or similar) ~ 125.24.4.216 12:42, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. It was created before by the same person who has now created it again; that doesn't mean it "exists", just that he'll create articles regardless of whether they refer to an identifiable place. We're not going redirect every nonsense article he creates to Maine just to stop him from re-creating them. The same arguments for deletion (not a destination, no identifiable place to redirect to) still apply. - Todd VerBeek 15:37, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Bogus. OldPine 15:02, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Pumpkin Notch

  • Speedy? Was deleted previously [6] Majnoona 12:05, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Or, as it apparently does exist and it's been created/deleted before, redirect it (to Maine or similar) ~ 125.24.4.216 12:40, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete, as above. - Todd VerBeek 15:37, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Bogus. OldPine 15:00, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Discount airlines in Portland

  • Way too narrow a topic. Majnoona 12:05, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Ryan 13:06, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. OldPine 14:47, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Golf Courses in Maine

Fort William (disambiguation)

  • Delete. This was created with links to: a city in Scotland (Fort William), a no-longer-existent city in Ontario with no Wikitravel article for it (since removed from the page), and a fort – an attraction – in Newfoundland with no article (also removed from the page). It is not needed. - Todd VerBeek 17:34, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I created it in error, agree it is not needed - if appropriate, speedy delete OK with me. ~ 125.24.4.216 17:42, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Zediker

  • Delete. Created as a non-descript stub, since converted into a disambiguation page for two "small place"s for which we do not have articles. - Todd VerBeek 18:45, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Airlines

  • Delete. This article consists of nothing but a long list of major airlines, along with the cities they serve. So far, the cities are only those starting with "Aa" thru "Ag" and it's already looking like Too Much Information™. With airline routes constantly changing (to say nothing of airlines themselves coming and going), this is going to be almost impossible to maintain, and not particularly practical to use even if we could. -Todd VerBeek 13:32, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Colin 14:04, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think this info should be in the "Get in" sections of destinations. --Evan 09:50, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. A non-goal. Majnoona 10:54, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
Update: He's up to "Al-", and despite attempts to contact him via Talk:Airlines, Talk:IP page, and the VFD notice on the page itself, he's still at it. Any chance of speedying this, to save the poor guy more wasted time?
  • Delete. Is a reason necessary? I'll check. OldPine 15:12, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
A reason is strongly encouraged. I agree with Todd on this. OldPine 17:52, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Surf the Saint Laurence

  • Delete. Already listed as something to "do" in Montreal and that's probably the best place for it at this time. -- Ilkirk 16:50, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Appears to be a regional attraction. Content seems to already exist in Montreal, and should be copied into any other applicable regions. -- Colin 17:40, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Concur with the above. OldPine 17:49, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's an experiment Evan created. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 17:57, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep, please. It's an experiment in doing a different kind of infobox. Delete. See below. --Evan 17:58, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Would it be possible to add a more informative explanation on Talk:Surf the Saint Laurence indicating what sort of experiment this is? I've wondered about this article before and didn't VFD it because you created it and I assumed you had a reason, but as it stands it does not meet the Wikitravel:What is an article? criteria and others are likely to wonder why it's here. -- Ryan 18:28, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • I gotta say I'm really unthrilled by the prospect of having content in PageA that it used in PageB, but that usage cannot be detected from PageA. Also, documentation is needed if this experiment is deemed a success. How long do you plan on experimenting with it? -- Colin 19:13, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Transcluded content should be visible through Special:Whatlinkshere, afaik. I plan on experimenting with it until it's done. There also seems to be a problem with the listing tags if there's one in a transcluded file; I need to do some debugging to determine if that's for any custom tag or just our listings. Anyways, I've moved the problem article to a sub-page of my user page, which is where experimental pages should go, after all. Since the main namespace article was not linked from anywhere but here, it's probably fine to delete the redirect. --Evan 19:28, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
      • Sorry to step on your toes Evan - I should have looked the history... -- Ilkirk 20:16, 19 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Struck my vote (if I remember how). Starting to remember why I don't participate on this page. OldPine 18:03, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Brocken

  • Delete. Not an article. I've incoporated the short amount text into Harz. -- Ilkirk 17:29, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Dachstein

  • Delete. Appears to be a mountain... unless some can find some reason, it doesn't appear to be an article. -- Ilkirk 17:45, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Grosser Feldberg

  • Delete. Not an article. I've incoporated the short amount text into Hesse. I think this article, along with Drocken and Dachstein are all created because they have some sort of communications tower on them. There was a spate of these articles a while back... -- Ilkirk 17:29, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Patrick scully

  • Delete. Seems to be some personal in-joke insult vandalism. --Evan 12:20, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Any reason not to speedy? — Ravikiran 12:37, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Speedy Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Mark furlong

  • Delete. Seems to be some personal in-joke insult vandalism. --Evan 12:22, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Any reason not to speedy? — Ravikiran 12:37, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Speedy Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Carpooling

  • Delete. Seems like something a little less tourist and more daily life. It started life here as a WikiPedia copyvio... -- Ilkirk 20:07, 19 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Ridesharing

  • Delete. Seems like something a little less tourist and more daily life. It started life here as a WikiPedia copyvio... -- Ilkirk 20:08, 19 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Chamera

  • Delete. I can only find a hydroelectric dam by this name and the copy in the article seems to indicate the same. -- Ilkirk 16:17, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Money changer bangalore

  • Delete. Most likely just spam, but might be useful infomation for an article? -- Ilkirk 09:48, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Catamaran hotel

Catamaran Resort and spa

  • Delete. Creating two copies of the same article is a bit much. I recommend letting this sit for a day or two in the hopes that the author will see it and then speedy deleting. -- Ryan 17:59, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Catamaran Resort Hotel

  • Delete. See above. -- Ryan 18:01, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Lodge at torrey pines

  • Delete. See above. -- Ryan 18:02, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. - Todd VerBeek 08:04, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Pattaya/Entertainment and Dining Guide

  • Delete. As the short discussion on the talk page suggests, the information contained within the article needs to be cycled into the main article before deletion, though... -- Ilkirk 21:41, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. There's nothing to cycle into the main article; I've updated the talk page. ~ 125.24.16.84 07:12, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Pattaya/Central

  • Delete. Merged into main article, now a redundant redirect. ~ 125.24.16.84 07:12, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Pattaya/Central_Pattaya

  • Delete. Redundant redirect. ~ 125.24.16.84 07:12, 26 July 2006 (EDT)


Bribery

  • Delete. Apparently intended to be a country-by-country guide to when/where to offer bribes or not, which should be covered in the various country articles instead. Without that, there's little point to a separate article. -Todd VerBeek 07:59, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Concur. Will bribe you to delete it. Nah. Would be inappropriate. Nevermind. OldPine 21:07, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. But go through VfD? Why, Officer, that sounds like such a time-consuming hassle. Couldn't we work out a more informal mechanism to expedite the process a little? Please accept this as a token of my gratitude — oh, but I insist! 'tis a mere trifle — and now let me write out a small consideration to the widows' fund... Jpatokal 21:42, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. I guide on where you can bribe somebody to get off the hook on something? Please maybe we can also add a page on the best pick up joints in Malaga

Vacation Rentals in North Carolina

White Mountain

  • Delete. Created by our serial creator, but also doesn't fit with Wikitravel:What is an article? unless someone discovers some fantastic route or something... -- Ilkirk 19:22, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
Redirect. It's a region in New Hampshire [7]. Oddly enough, we're planning on stopping around there next week on our way to Boston. Maj 20:11, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep. Hopefully, someone could convince Evan and Maj to pay special attention to the area, while they're travelling. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:13, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • The region is the White Mountains. If we're going to keep this then it should be a redirect. -- Ryan 20:16, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
There's also a "White Mountains" in Washington State. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:00, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Confused. When I click on the White Mountain link I get a page that says it's in Alaska. There does appear to be such a place. What am I missing? *OldPine checks his capital I's* OldPine 20:43, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • After reading "OldPine's" (if that is in fact your real Wikitravel user name) comments. I did some sleuthing and according to Getty's there are many White Mountain locations, including one in the Czech Republic [8]. I check my lower case l's :). It seems the best solution is to disambig. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:55, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
    • The question isn't whether a place with the name of "White Mountain" exists (there are lots) but whether a destination that we're going to write an article about with that name exists. Mountains and mountain ranges are not subjects for articles (per Wikitravel:What is an article?) unless the article is about a region named after the mountain or range. In this case Maj is proposing to redirect the article as a typo for the White Mountains region of New Hampshire - while I think that's being generous, creating a disambiguation page for this one would be going too far. -- Ryan 21:17, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
      • What about the place in Arizona [9]? -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:20, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
      • And the one in Alaska that is what the page now represents. It's listed as a city by Wikipedia. Geez, so there might not be anything written. Are we policing out stubs? OldPine 21:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
        • Referring to the existing article about the tiny town on the Seward Peninsula, it's not that this article is a stub that's an issue, it's whether or not it has the potential to eventually become a useful guide, or whether the level of granularity should be at a more regional level. Normally I'd say the fact that someone felt a need to create the article would justify the level of granularity, but since it was created by a mischevious contributor who creates articles for inconspicuous dots on the map and fills them with useful content like "White Mountain a town", I think this one could safely go away. If some day someone who really does want to create a useful guide to the area comes along then there would be nothing stopping them from re-creating it or else creating an article at a useful level of granularity, but for now I don't see a reason to keep a useless guide about a place none of us knows much about simply because Wikipedia says it has a population of around 200. -- Ryan 21:35, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
          • OK, OK, I'm starting to remember that I don't really care. Sorry. OldPine 22:08, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
        • What Ryan said. It is not one of Wikitravel's goals to create an article for every place on the planet, but for every destination on the planet. An article with little potential to reach "usable" status (for a city that means at least one place of public accommodation, at least one restaurant, and at least one "attraction") and no potential for "guide" status (multiple options for each), is probably not a viable article unless we know that tourists are going there, regardless of the lack of facilities for them (e.g. a few of our Off the Beaten Path nominations). To be useful to the traveler, what little information we could collect about that place should instead be incorporated into an article that covers a larger area that collectively could be a travel destination with enough to See, Do, Buy, Eat, and Drink to make it worth a visit. Maybe that larger area is a county; more likely it's a region with a locally-understood name (e.g. Leelanau Peninsula). See Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy#Cities for some "policy" about this, but a key bit is this: "Where suburbs, satellite cities and villages deserve their own Wikitravel entries is a matter of judgement -- probably depending on the amount of information about those places." Not enough information to be had means it's not an article. - Todd VerBeek 22:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
    • Regarding all of the above "should it stay or should it go" conversation - whatever gets decided here may then should be applied to most of the work in my contributions lately. I worked through a stack of orphaned articles (created by you know who) to give them a parent. The majority of those articles are very, very dot on the map locations - plenty in Alaska and India. I have to agree that its pretty silly to have articles about dots... I'd say that most villages of +/- 200 people probably don't have a lot to offer tourists. Sure - there are exceptions, but we're going to have an awful lot of "City in region" only articles... -- Ilkirk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
Just to clarify my position on this issue I was not advocating for the Alaskan town to be kept. I was advocating to disambig White Mountain and White Mountains, because there appear to be several regions with similar names. I.e. checking this page shows that the White Mountains article page had been confused by someone who linked to the article from Arizona thinking White Mountains was referring to the region in Arizona. Does anyone have a problem keeping the White Mountain page and making it a disambig? This really isn't a debate about whether or not to keep an article on some god-forsaken town in Alaska. -- User:Sapphire

Westcott

  • Delete. Apparently this is just a neighborhood in West Warwick, not a town of its own. -- Ilkirk 19:33, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. Mention as a village in the West Warwick (along with the famous village of Arctic wherein I was married once(but I digress)) article (if ever written) as is customary in this area. OldPine 21:11, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Zadani

  • Delete. I've been unsuccessful in locating this one even with my secret weapon website [10], Wikipedia and Google. Obviously our special article creator found it someplace... -- Ilkirk 19:50, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:09, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Singapore/Central

  • Rather pointless meta-region, all the information within has been merged into Singapore and its other districts. Jpatokal 00:52, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete. You know the region better than me, so I trust you. -- Ilkirk 09:15, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages