Beautiful banners are coming to every article and you can help!
Check out our guidelines and learn how to create your own!

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 16:29, 24 October 2011 by (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search


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.

See also:


The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

* '''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. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
  3. 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.
  4. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel - images that are located on Wikitravel Shared must be nominated for deletion there instead.


All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

* '''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. If you are in favor of redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. 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 archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

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, move 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).

If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

September 2011

Tonle Sap Lake

Article on a body of water doesn't comply with policy. Some info might useful in other articles for nearby towns. - Cardboardbird 21:03, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

It's a tough one and I remember looking at this when I regionalised Cambodia in 2009. Our policy on bodies of water still confuses me greatly. Massive tomes have been written on this - here for example. I still don't really understand. We have articles about bodies of water that are certainly not regions (if that is the criterion?) but have a "convenient" region template applied (eg Loch Ness). Could do the same for Ton Le Sap. --burmesedays 21:32, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
Comment Tough one indeed. I read the related discussions and I really couldn't decipher anything that even looks like policy. Seems that it could either go as a region, disambiguation page or a straight redirect. From what I understand, Tonle Sap is generally a day trip from Siem Reap for most travellers. Would the Tonle Sap Lake article contain anything travel related that is not already in the SR article? - Cardboardbird 10:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
I think this discussion should move to the article's talk page - this one shouldn't be deleted per Wikitravel:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting, so the discussion is about whether it should be redirected, and if so where. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Any objections? Going twice... -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Isha Yoga Centre

I'd like to put this up for re-nomination, as the earlier voting process was obviously rigged (see [1]). If Delta Works should go, which has no clear city where it should be redirected to, we should at least redirect the Isha Yoga Centre. It is clearly an attraction, and belongs to Coimbatore, where it is already listed in the See section.

  • Merge and redirect to Coimbatore. --globe-trotter 02:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect to Coimbatore. - As the one who nominated it for deletion the first time, I also felt that the voting was rigged: New users practically never make their very first contribution on the VfD page, and for this one little-known attraction, there were at least five or six such never-contributed-before users voting to keep it within only a day or two of its nomination? Not at all believable. texugo 02:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep per my comments last time. New users were hardly the only people recommending the article be kept. Merging to a community 35 kilometers distant seems absurd to me. LtPowers 10:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Speedy keep. The previous VFD was not "obviously rigged" - there were four "keep" votes from regular users and two "merge and delete" votes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep I don't particularly like ashrams, but merging this one into the nearest huge city (which is not at all the nearest town!) just makes no sense to me either. For travellers, this ashram is a destination of its own and apart from being a transport hub on the way there, the huge and industrial city of Coimbatore has little to do with it. Also, putting all this info into the Combatoire article would throw that one totally off balance, as the ashram is not a major sight of that city. If the yoga centre has to be merged into something, it should probably be into the village article of Semmedu. However, in practice it doesn't clearly belong to any city or town, it is a destination of its own, you can eat and sleep there, and the current article is functional (guide status even), so just keeping it seems the most sensible thing right now. Justme 11:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
That discussion puts a dangerous precedent for Wikitravel, so it should be discussed thoroughly. The previous discussion is 100% rigged to the bone with 6 obvious fake in favor voters, even excluding the writer of the article (who probably set it all up). A majority of votes were fake, which puts the whole process at stake, and with that, the credibility of Wikitravel as a whole.
Having an attraction 35 km far is by any means not "absurd", it's the way many articles are structured on the site. Kanchanaburi has attractions more than 100km off. People visit the attraction from Coimbatore, so that's where it should be listed according to current Wikitravel policy (and it is already listed in that article in the first place).
And Justme, I don't think it would throw the Coimbatore article out of balance. This article has way too much information for just one sight, a lot of it should go. I could easily write 30 pages about the Grand Palace in Bangkok and then make it a separate article, but that doesn't mean it's a good fit for a travel guide. --globe-trotter 11:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Globe-trotter - while I respect your opinion, I take offense to your repeated comments that the previous discussion was "rigged to the bone". As was pointed out above, even if you take away all votes from new users, there four "keep" votes and only two "merge" votes. And I'm far from convinced that all of the new users who voted were "fake users". -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:25, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
They were all fake. I could be political correct, and state that the only contributions they did were voting on that particular VFD, but let's be honest here, they were all fake users (probably created by the writer of that article, who might even be the owner of the attraction). On Wikipedia, those votes would not even count as only users with a particular number of edits made count there. Obviously the votes from the Wikitravel veterans are real, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look more careful to this slippery slope. --globe-trotter 11:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Reading that vfd discussion again, there was a genuine 4-2 vote to keep. The other votes appear to be highly questionable though and, to be polite, somewhat outside the normal pattern of vfd voting :).--burmesedays 11:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
While we normally don't get many VFD comments from new users, Wikitravel is also the #2 Google result for anyone searching for this ashram, so while the voting was suspicious, without seeing the logs I think it's impossible to definitively call fraud - I suspect if some of our other high-ranking articles like Grand old hotels were put up for VFD that they might also attract significant attention from drive-by users. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

(Edit conflict).

  • Merge and re-direct to Coimbatore. At first glance this article totally deceived me, and I even stuck it up as an OtbP candidate. It is though clearly not an article. It's a 150 acre Yoga-based property, as stated in the 3rd sentence of the article. I am bemused as to why veteran Wikitravelers voted to keep it first time round? This sets a very nasty precedent indeed, and would make deleting any future resort article more than troublesome. The fact that there is loads of detail is irrelevant. I could write as much about a large Four Seasons golf resort if I put my mind to it. As for the appropriateness of merging to Coimbatore, 20 miles is a nothing distance in India (or anywhere else for that matter), and should be no impediment to such a merge. It is certainly not "absurd". --burmesedays 11:20, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
It's not that I want to keep this article specifically, but it seems weird to put it into Coimbatore. Even in India 35 km is a good bus ride, but more importantly, there are other towns closer. It would be like putting the Keukenhof into Amsterdam, despite the fact that there are other towns nearer. The fact that WT (and even Wikipedia) is underdeveloped as far as that region goes, doesn't seem a good reason to dump information into the nearest city we have. Keeping it seemed easier, but if it's a precedent matter I don't think ashrams generally make good separate destinations. Justme 11:56, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Coimbatore is not set in stone to me. We could also maybe create an article Velliangiri Mountains [2], or maybe another town/village from where travelers visit this attraction. I have objections with the principle of creating articles for attractions, which is not allowed per Wikitravel policy. --globe-trotter 12:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Merging it with Coimbatore would be like merging Walt Disney World into Orlando. Except even farther away. If you can sleep there, I really don't see what the problem is. LtPowers 13:52, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
You can't really sleep there, it's a hermitage. The sleeping facilities there all need to be booked weeks in advance, because it's a religious retreat. Accepting Isha Yoga Centre as having sleeping facilities, then we could count every temple in Thailand as an article, as every temple has a monk's quarters where you could stay. About WDW, it has an immense size and millions of annual visitors and many many attractions. However, if it had just a few buildings (it doesn't I know), then indeed it would have to be listed at a nearby town. I visited WDW sleeping in Kissimmee.
Just look at the map to see how small Isha Yoga Centre really is, it really cannot be compared with WDW. The scale uses 0.05 km (!), something I've never seen before on any map. Just looking at the See listings is laughable, they describe rooms in the buildings. One listing, to give an example, is the "audio/visual centre", with the description "Move on to the audio/visual center where you will be shown a short introductory video which will give you a better idea of the temple, its background and history. The video is played alternately in both Tamil - the local language, and in English". Many museums I know have these kind of introductory videos, those in no way should be See listings of their own. --globe-trotter 14:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
In any case, "can you sleep there?" is a sloppy criterion which has never made sense to me. You can sleep at hotels, campsites, homestays and all manner of other places, but that does not make any of them articles.--burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Speedy keep. The original vfd was not "rigged". Even if you discount votes from anyone without a long track record at Wikitravel, there were 4 keep votes and 2 delete votes. And discounting votes from new users is not fair; even if you suspect that someone is voting multiple times, their arguments should still be taken into account (and the vfd page does not follow a straight majoritarian voting system either). Nothing has changed with the article since then, so a second nomination seems inappropriate and a waste of time. --Peter Talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
To respond to points made, though (and this would be more appropriately done on the article's talk page): 1) for every time someone asserts "this is an attraction," I can assert "this is a destination." Perhaps developing formal criteria would be worthwhile, since this is not the first time this has come up. 2) Why would we name the article after some random nearby town that no one visits, if this is the place people go to? In any rate, the vfd page is not appropriate for that type of discussion, which should be done on the article talk page. 3) For my (and others') opinions on why this article should not be deleted, see the first vfd. --Peter Talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Formal criteria would be useful if they stop this happening again. On your point 2), I thought that putting listings into the nearest town was standard Wikitravel procedure, or have we all been doing that wrong?
On the purported lack of fame of Coimbatore (which I would dispute anyway as it is the 2nd largest city in Tamil Nadu beaten only by Chennai, and it has its own international airport), it seems that Wikitravel:What is an article? deals with that: If an attraction is really famous and travellers may not know the city or region it is in, then create an article with the attraction name as title, but make it a redirect to the city or region and put the description in the city or region article.
I would suggest leaving this here for now, or moving it to Wikitravel talk:What is an article?, rather than burying it on the article talk page, as it is a rather important policy discussion. --burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think this is ready to get swept aside, and I resent any notion of speedy disposal. I am astonished that long-time users are voting to keep this. If it were a spa resort or a Methodist retreat with five times as many buildings and twice the land area located 20 miles from Childress, Texas, there is no way in hell any of you would be voting to keep it as an article. But because it's in oh-so-mysterious India land of yogis, you are voting to keep it. As globetrotter pointed out, this article is embarrassingly detailed for an establishment that is in no way historic, and I think it makes us look like touts. Like maybe I can throw a religious retreat together somewhere and get my own Wikitravel article too. This place is essentially an accommodation that must be booked in advance plus non-historic religious facilities, and I cannot wrap my head around the fact that some veteran users are being fooled by the original writer's detail into thinking that this place merits its own article. If it had been written a little more poorly like most such attempts, I think everyone would see it for what it is -- just another place trying to make money. texugo 00:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
The rules at wiaa clearly state that individual companies should not have their own articles. I heavily object to a speedy, as this article is a violation of Wikitravel policy, and thus those in favor should give arguments why this should warrant an exception. The exceptions section states the following: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." I think both of these do not apply here. The Isha Yoga Centre is easily done as a day-trip from Coimbatore and does not require an overnight stay. The information would not overload that article, as this article gives a ridiculous wall of text that is in any way too detailed for a travel guide. As I read it, exceptions are made for obvious very large and popular attractions like Walt Disney World and Angkor Wat, not for any company that happens to be somewhat out in the countryside. --globe-trotter 04:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Cedar Point is immediately adjacent to Sandusky but we still have an article on it because it's a popular attraction that people are looking for separate from going to Sandusky for a visit. Darien Lake is a theme park resort within easy day-trip distance from Batavia (New York), Buffalo, and Rochester (New York), but I wouldn't recommend merging it because it is a separate destination in its own right, not part of a trip to Batavia. LtPowers 13:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
As I wrote before, I'm not against articles for big theme parks and attractions with millions of visitors occupying large amounts of space. Smaller theme parks, like Tivoli [3], shouldn't have their own article. This is already common practice. Exceptions should be made on a case-by-case basis and only if they fall within the policy guideline of wiaa. I think the Isha Yoga Centre cannot be compared with big theme parks, a better analogy would be small attractions in the countryside, like a museum or another religious retreat. There is also an Amsterdam Yoga Centre [4], I don't think that should be a separate district of Amsterdam. And the Onze Lieve Vrouwe van de Besloten Tuin [5], a similar religious retreat in the countryside of the Netherlands, I don't think that should be its own article. I think the exceptions section was not meant to include these kind of attractions. --globe-trotter 14:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
My comment from the previous VFD discussion addresses this point:
While this doesn't meet the standard Wikitravel:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions.
If there was no Isha Yoga Centre article and someone was asking where to list it we obviously wouldn't tell them to start a new article, but there is now a complete, useful article about this place and no compelling reason that I see for getting rid of it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
My vote for speedy keep has nothing to do with the article in question, and everything to do with the fact that the vfd was already resolved. In general, the vfd page is not a great place for a nuanced discussion on where to put content—that is better done on the article talk page. And this clearly cannot be a case for deletion, as at the most it would be redirected, if content were to be merged elsewhere. Again, the vfd page is not necessary for such a merge discussion. --Peter Talk 17:26, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
This opens the door for every large resort owner (or whichever marketing company they engage) to create an article about their property, which, instead of being disallowed by Wikitravel:What is an article, is apparently now OK. That's not the way I see Wikitravel, and I find it seriously disappointing that some others do.
Peter, are you saying that your vote to keep this non-article is based on a technicality of delete vis-a-vis merge, rather than the points you originally made?--burmesedays 22:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Nope, my speedy keep vote was based on the fact that this article's vfd already concluded, and that I don't think it appropriate to re-vfd. That just leads to going-nowhere efforts like this eyesore, which will probably languish here for months without purpose. --Peter Talk 23:53, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Peter, we have Votes for undeletion, which similarly admits that the VfD process isn't immune to mistakes. You yourself have nominated things for undeletion which had previously passed through a VfD process. Aren't mistakes in the other direction just as likely? A sort of "Votes for Unkeeping", if you will? texugo 00:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Ryan, it's not at all "too extensive to merge" if we cut it back to a level of detail that isn't plainly ridiculous. I could write an article about my arsehole local Catholic church grounds that would have more See and Do items and a larger map than this place, but just because I cast it onto Wikitravel fully formed with great detail doesn't mean that it should be automatically kept as an article. This is like arguing that a museum should get its own article just because someone went to the trouble of describing in detail what's in each room. It's just far too much information. I also agree with burmesedays argument that it sets a precedent to allow any and all similar business owners to fly into a lot of their own ramblingly detailed articles. And Peter, regardless of the fact that a redirect would remain in its place, I'd say this is more of a vfd in the sense that the majority of this article needs to be flat out deleted, with only a short listing at Coimbatore. Leave all that detailed, overhyped stuff to their website. texugo 22:43, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm not even sure if we should be redirecting companies, the [Wikitravel:How_to_redirect_a_page|redirecting]] policy does not state anything about that. Should we make a redirect for Ronny's New York Pizza and redirect it to Bangkok/Sukhumvit? Or redirect British Museum to London/Bloomsbury? As far as I know that has not been common practice, but I don't know if and where discussion about this has taken place. I only proposed to redirect as there otherwise might be broken links.
However, more important is I think what Ryan states. It was probably the business owner who created this article from outline to guide status within 24 hours [6]. This is easily done, because its a small sight, so it is quickly at guide status. Because its now guide status, the community accepts this article as being "too long to merge", even though the article rambles on about minor details and none of the sights have any real cultural or historic value. Now the business owner has a full article dedicated to its own business, accepted by the Wikitravel community, and so immensely detailed that its own website looks bleak in comparison. I consider this the mother of all touts, and it seriously questions the credibility of Wikitravel as a whole. --globe-trotter 23:52, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
The writer himself admits that he's a visitor/follower there. I think ashrams should be seen like all-in-resorts, just with a strong spiritual and a sight-seeing component. It's hard to judge how many visitors ever make it there, but it's a fact that many of these places have interesting festivities and temples, making it also an attraction to visitors. I tend to agree with Ryan that it seems a waste to delete properly formatted articles, but I wouldn't want to create any kind of policy in favour of ashrams having articles of their own. Their promotional activities are more aggressive than resorts :-) However, I fear for a huge city like Coimbatore (bigger than Amsterdam, for the record) if it would have to absorb all small destinations in the large Coimbatore (region) area. This might be one of the larger ones, or due to its US centre a more popular one among international travellers, but there are at least some 20 other ashrams in that area[7]. As a popular one it could have a get-out listing in Coimbatore perhaps, but I really wonder if the Coimbatore (city) article is a good idea for a full listing.
As an aside: I think fear of redirects is only ever a matter of policies and editors, and can only be helpful to travellers. I wouldn't want to embark on a mission to create them, but I would never delete one either. Justme 05:52, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
  • And now for something completely different (not really completely, but I felt the urge to use the phrase).
I have briefly read through the article and a few impressions may be worth noting;
  1. This is a small place with a lot of detail for it's size in the description.
  2. The policy appears to try to separate things into black and white. Many things are grey. This seems to be one of them, and to me it is towards the non-article end of the scale.
  3. The tone of the article does seem a bit hyped, but I have seen worse.
  4. This does look a bit like the sharp edge at the top of the slippery slope.
  5. Maybe we should be looking at this in a different way. Not as grey, but as yellow. Then it gets its own scale. Perhaps as a travel topic on Religious retreats, or Spiritual retreats if that is considered more appropriate, of India, if there are enough of them, and I suspect there will be, where this could be a sub-article, in much the same way that Scuba diving has national articles like Scuba diving in the British Virgin Islands with sub-articles like Scuba diving in the British Virgin Islands/RMS Rhone. This would leave us with the equivalent Spiritual retreats of India/Isha yoga centre or something similar. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:54, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
I think Peter has it exactly right. The travel topic idea is a fine one. The overview should be linked from India, particular ashrams from the overview and appropriate regional articles. Pashley 23:22, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Suggestion. Since this article has previously survived a VFD nomination, and since there isn't a clear consensus to delete it, I would suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Isha Yoga Centre. Does anyone feel that would be inappropriate, or can this be moved and the discussion continued there? -- wrh2 12:56, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
    Any objections? Going twice... -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Tham Nong Pafa Cave

It is obviously an attraction and not an article. It is not even an especially important attraction and should be deleted according to policy. I guess a merge and re-direct to Tha Khaek would be OK though.--burmesedays 10:23, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Image:Cleethorpes seafront.jpg

  • Delete. See Cleethorpes for the current usage of this image - it's a pretty image, but at 7199x367 the aspect ratio makes it nearly impossible to use in a web-based travel guide. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Modify and Keep. Unless we have a better image, this one is an excellent perspective on Cleethorpes, showing the mudflat, the tide out, and the tacky English seafront attractions along the waterfront. In fact the image says everything about the town, such that the rest of the article text should in fact be deleted, and just replaced with this image. --inas 20:44, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - I'm not a fan of using panoramas in the first place, and this one is beyond extreme, such that even if we trimmed off 3/4 of it, it would still be unwieldy at a comfortable viewing size, and it would lose most of the advantages Inas mentions. Plus, at a comfortable viewing size, it's pretty grainy picture quality. I'd say it's better to dump this and find 2 or 3 reasonably framed shots from Flickr or something. texugo 22:40, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Blue Lagoon

  • Delete. This is a very nice article about a single geothermal bath. Although it's extremely popular and they do offer some limited accommodation, by no means can this be considered a resort or a destination in its own right. The information belongs either in the article for nearby town Grindavík or simply as an activity in the Southwest Iceland region. --sterio 06:28, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Create Grindavik and merge there. Blue Lagoon is a loose term and very widespread. There are two Blue Lagoons in Bali for example, and I am sure heaps elsewhere. Therefore I propose that Blue Lagoon is not redirected to Grindavik.--burmesedays 06:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • This seems like a borderline case - the Blue Lagoon is one of the most popular destinations/attractions in Iceland, so it seems important to have decent information about it in Wikitravel, but it also isn't something that would typically get its own article. The information needs to be somewhere, but I'm not sure that putting it in Southwest Iceland makes sense and Grindavík may be too far away to be an obvious solution. If there isn't a place to put the information that makes it easy for travelers to find then I'd say keep, although if it can be included in another article in a way that makes sense then either a redirect or a disambiguation page would be fine. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
The more I think about it, the more I agree it should not be in Grindavík. Not because of the distance (it's just a few km outside the town) but because tourists would generally approach Grindavík for very different reasons than the Blue Lagoon. But it fits perfectly in the "Do" section of Southwest Iceland: It is an activity in this region, and usually done either during visits to other sites in the region (Reykjavík and the international airport), or as an extention of the Golden Circle in South Iceland. It should be mentioned in the Iceland, South Iceland and Reykjavík articles, but the listing belongs in the Southwest. And it should not be a separate page because all that needs to be said is what it is, where it is, how to get there, and how much it costs as well as a few lines on how good/bad people think it is. That's what the page does now, only in a somewhat elongated form. I can understand that people feel this attraction needs more info than just any other swimming pool, though. Maybe a special box on the Southwest Iceland page would be a good idea? --sterio 11:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep. It cannot be solely in Southwest Iceland as that is a region article. Region articles give an overview of the region, but do not include any listings. The problem, then, is how we deal with small villages and outlying sights like the Blue Lagoon. This has been a point of contention on Wikitravel for a while, and I don't think we have found a compelling solution for this yet. However, the Blue Lagoon is a major natural attraction with 400,000 visitors annually [8], so I think it could be a separate park article, just like Angkor Archaeological Park and Borobudur. I agree it's a borderline case, but I wouldn't know how else to deal with it. --globe-trotter 13:31, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep Pashley 20:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • First, is there a WT policy that says an attraction cannot be listed in a Region article only? Second, I think it is very notable that our only regular Icelandic contributor does not think this is an article.--burmesedays 21:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
    • It's definitely questionable whether the Blue Lagoon merits its own article based on Wikitravel's standard criteria, and were it less popular there probably wouldn't need to be further discussion. However, I would hazard a guess that the Blue Lagoon is the country's second most visited spot (behind Reykjavik) so it's important that Wikitravel cover it and definitely worth considering whether it merits an exception under existing policy. Most people going to the Blue Lagoon will do so as a day trip or half-day trip and will need info on how to get there, what to expect, whether food is available, etc. If that can be adequately covered as a listing in a region article then that might be the best option, but it seems like it may just make more sense to keep the info in its own article rather than trying to wedge it into something that looks more like a standard Wikitravel attraction. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
I have to admit, I'm slightly perplexed by this discussion. The Blue Lagoon doesn't fit any of the loose criteria there is for exceptions for article status: It's not remote, it's not large or complex. It's not a park of any kind, or an independent destination in its own right. For the visitor it functions much like any other pool: You get there (driving yourself or by bus), pay, shower, swim, shower again, maybe eat in the café, and leave. In addition, there's a restaurant and a gift shop. And that's about it unless have psoriasis, in which case your doctor can recommend you go there for treatment. The only thing that makes this place possibly warrant a separate article is that it doesn't fit in the Reykjavík article (it's not in Reykjavík) or the Grindavík article (very few who visit the Blue Lagoon actually enter the town). The fact that many people go there isn't, in my view, reason enough for a separate article. In fact, apart from the introduction, there is very little content in the current article other than what I just mentioned. Some of what's there is even slightly silly and shouldn't be there, in my opinion (taking a taxi and making it wait outside is just stupid, and this article lists the rules that apply to every single swimming pool in Iceland).
However, this rule globe-trotter mentions about no listings in region articles is highly problematic in the case of Iceland. Most people come their not for the urban areas, but for the stuff in between them. People come to experience nature, towns are often only where they go to eat and sleep. The sights and activities do in many cases belong better in region articles than city or town articles. If this is a rule, I would see much more use in getting an exception from it rather than the rule on what is an article. --sterio 05:24, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
That means the cities in Iceland should cover a broader area than just the city itself. For example, Kanchanaburi is a city that covers a huge surrounding area, as travelers use that as a base for all the natural attractions in the area. Bali gives a good example how to divide a whole island. About the Blue Lagoon, maybe an article Reykjanes Peninsula could do it? Or we could include it in Reykjavik, as that is where most travellers come from. --globe-trotter 07:23, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
Sterio's latest comment is very telling to me. This is clearly not an article.
I ask again if there is really a rule that an attraction cannot be described in a region article and nowhere else? If that is the case, just stick this in the nearest city article as the attraction that it is.
As an aside, I don't see anything wrong with the regional split of Iceland. The plan was actually re-done quite recently with extensive local input from User Sterio.--Burmesedays 09:52, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
I have not proposed re-doing the regions of Iceland, I just proposed a new article at the lowest level of the hierarchy, similar to Bukit Peninsula in Bali. But I don't know Iceland well enough, it was just a suggestion. Regions only give an overview, no listings, as written at Region article template. I agree that it is an attraction, but wouldn't know which city it should be placed in. --globe-trotter 11:30, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
Attractions definitely can be listed in regions, but I'm pretty certain our practice and discussions permit them only in "bottom level regions"—"region" articles containing no separate articles beneath for cities or other destinations. They essentially serve the same purpose as a city article, but do so for an agglomeration of rural areas and towns that do not warrant their own articles. This discussion has the most information on this topic, but is going to just confuse anyone not very familiar with the topic to begin with. I'm going to whip up a blurb in Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy, and see if it's acceptable for those involved in the evolving discussion.
I do think that this article does not meet our article criteria, and runs afoul of our Wikitravel:Bodies of water policy, so ideally, I vote merge and redirect, but only if we can come up with a good place to which we would merge and redirect (I do not know Iceland enough to help with that). Otherwise, I'd vote keep as an exception on the pragmatic basis of not having a better option. --Peter Talk 11:32, 30.September 2011 (EDT)

Keep it! It is nice guide to this destination and helps a lot to the tourists! Helped to me!

October 2011

List of Pet Friendly Hotels in India

Another India list article. Even if we didn't categorically avoid lists, there's no way we could construct a single list of all pet-friendly accommodations in India, nor would it be useful if we could. This type of information belongs in individual listings, so I don't think there is much of anything to merge.

  • Delete - texugo 09:22, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. I've left a note on the article's talk page noting that adding this information to listings in city articles is fine, but a generic "list of" article is probably not useful. -- wrh2 12:33, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Same reasons as given above.--burmesedays 22:51, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Eae.jpg & Image:Egh.jpg



Image:Exterior marina.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned aerial view of a resort. In addition to being unused and promotional this one looks suspicious as a copyvio. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Tesoro Manzanillo.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a resort. In addition to being unused and promotional this one looks suspicious as a copyvio. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:MAYFAIR Puri.jpg

Image:MedCentral Health System.JPG

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a hotel parking lot. This could potentially be incorporated into an article, but it's a low-quality image of something that isn't particularly relevant for travel. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


Image:Moyamanzi 01.jpg


  • Delete. Orphaned image of a non-notable "grocery and video store". -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific resort, and also looks suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Devere whites.jpg

Image:Hotel east end-front view.jpg, Image:Hotel east end-reception and lounge.jpg, Image:Hotel east end-corridor.jpg & Image:Hotel east end's lobby on third floor.jpg

  • Delete. Four orphaned images of the same non-notable hotel. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:A-4Star Hotel.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a non-notable hotel. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


  • Delete. Orphaned map image providing directions to a specific guesthouse. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Metrorrey mapa.png

  • Delete. Orphaned subway map, the original indicates that it was taken from another site but there is no indication that it can be re-used under the CC-SA. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


  • Delete. Orphaned image with a frame and a caption, highly suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


  • Delete. An orphaned aerial image from the same uploader as Image:PinkBunny.jpg, so this is also suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


  • Delete. Orphaned (well, archived on a talk page) thumbnail advertising a house rental. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:32, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Images from Special:Contributions/Otd_uk



  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable individuals with no model release provided. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:32, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Ghorepani Poon Hill Trek

  • Delete. A Google search on the article text gives two hits, so this has clearly been copied from elsewhere, and there is no indication that it is freely-licensed and thus re-usable without violating copyright law. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Coxs pub.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a non-notable pub that was apparently uploaded to promote the business in question, something that is typically discouraged per shared:Image policy#Photos of businesses. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Korea2001 .PNG

Image:Riu Palace Cabo San Lucas.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a Mexican resort that also appears to be suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:XLA127 04.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a resort that also appears to be suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:HC - ocean.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a hotel from an uploader who also uploaded several images that are suspicious as potential copyvios. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Ted Davis images

  • Delete. As the naming of the third image makes very clear, these three images all state "copyright Ted Davis", but he was not the uploader and there is no indication that the images can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)


  • Delete. Orphaned map image that appears to be a scan with no indication that it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Mail html m12e1ba06.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a non-notable pub that was apparently uploaded to promote the business in question, something that is typically discouraged per shared:Image policy#Photos of businesses. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Rio Subway Stations.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned Rio subway map (including timetables) with no clear indication of its original source and whether that source is something that can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Uchenna Oguayo.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Ouranos .jpg & Image:Ouranos suite.jpg

  • Delete. Two copies of the same image, both orphaned, and both apparently uploaded to promote the business in question, something that is typically discouraged per shared:Image policy#Photos of businesses. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Niels pic-1-.jpg & Image:Nielpic.jpg

  • Delete. Two copies of the same image, both orphaned, and both of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)


  • Delete. Orphaned image. While there is a stunning lack of images on Wikitravel of people in fake moustaches wearing sombreros, this one is orphaned and has no model release provided. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete and Replace it with an image of Ryan in a fake moustache and sombrero, properly credited.texugo 11:40, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Olympics0508 095.jpg

  • Delete. Orphaned image. Similarly to Image:Sombrero.jpg, I find it shocking that this is one of Wikitravel's only images on an individual sporting facial hair composed entirely of plantlife, but unfortunately this image is orphaned and has no model release provided. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Image:Borsch.jpg and Image:Salo.jpg

Two images uploaded here in 2006 without sources. Both look like commercial images, and the first has a tineye hit on that has since been deleted. I believe they are both probable copyvios.

  • Delete both - texugo 11:36, 20 October 2011 (EDT)


Merge to Tampere. This seems to be somebody's idea of a joke, or a bizarre attempt at spam by the "detective agency". Nekala is a suburban neighbourhood of Tampere, mostly known for its wooden houses and large allotment gardens; my grandparents owned one and I spent many an idyllic summer day there as a kid. One chunk of it does contain dodgy public housing full of alcoholics, but the stuff about people going around carrying knifes, defending their honor etc is just ridiculous -- and the reason the article should be deleted is that there's absolutely nothing for a tourist to see. jpatokal 06:10, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Jpatokal; I think you are right and somewhat wrong at the same time. There is indeed no doubt that the article seems a bit ridiculous at its present state and the image it gives is very one-sided. However, I cannot find any actual errors or lies from article. From my personal and limited history in the late 90s I can say that at its worst, parts of Nekala where exactly as described in the article. I think the writer might just be familiar with a very small chunk of Nekala and therefore naively presents his experiences being true to the whole area. In my opinion, the article should be expanded to provide a more wholesome picture of Nekala. The mention about the detective agency seems indeed too much like an add.

I see no reason to delete the article just because the area is not interesting. Don't we all feel that way about the places we live in? Finnish neighbourhood might feel very exciting to someone from a different culture. For example, the lake Iidesjärvi is a very important natural scenery very close to the city centre. 14:42, 22 October 2011 (EDT) Viinikka Vanha Liitto

This is the wrong place to have this discussion, as no one is arguing for it to be deleted. The article should have the merge tag on top of it, and this discussion (about merging or not) should be relocated to the Talk page of that article. --globe-trotter 15:03, 22 October 2011 (EDT)



Destination Docents

In other languages

other sites