Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/December 2007
Archive for Wikitravel:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/November 2007 or Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/January 2008 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.
- No particular issues with deleting this because it's superseded by a Shared image, but I just noticed that the Shared image itself has license issues. Is that real, or is it an artifact of the way the Shared image was created? I'd like to resolve that question before deleting this image. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:16, 22 November 2007 (EST)
Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)
Okay, so we've got all these district articles for separate neighborhoods in Downtown San Diego. The problem is that each neighborhood really doesn't have enough stuff to stand on its own (with the possible exception of Little Italy). I think all of them should be combined into a single Downtown article, which I have already created with all the listings that are on each page. PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)
- Redirect all. Since they are places, I think redirects would be the (marginally) best way to handle overly subdivided districts, being just a bit cheaper a solution than deletes. And there is the off chance that such redirects might boost page rank on search engines (although that's a moving target). --Peter Talk 06:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Hmmm, that's not a bad idea. Okay, well now I'm willing to go either way (delete or redirect). PerryPlanet 11:52, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Redirect. Agreed with Peter. Gorilla Jones 19:03, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Well, seeing as it's been two weeks, I'll redirect them now. PerryPlanet 12:59, 3 December 2007 (EST)
Same as above. PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Same as above (as above). PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Same as above (as above as above). PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Same as above (as above as above as above). PerryPlanet 15:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Outcome: Redirected All. PerryPlanet 13:13, 3 December 2007 (EST)
The entire article is "ok". I am not too familiar with the guidelines here, but I'm assuming that having just two letters would make the article a candidate for deletion. --The Yeti 11:32, 17 November 2007 (EST)
- Delete. Not an article, can't think of a suitable redirect; would support speedy deletion.
Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:17, 4 December 2007 (EST)
- Delete. Too fine grained. Hahnenklee is a very small town in the Harz Mountains in Germany. It is not a major tourist destination at all. Currently the article promotes only a small family pension. It is practically spam.22.214.171.124 14:48, 11 November 2007 (EST)
- Keep, at least for now. "Too fine grained ... not a major tourist destination at all" is not a reason to delete an article, if the place meets the you-can-sleep-there test, and it appears that this one does. Instead, clean it up and make it useful, or redirect it to something more inclusive. Might this place be part of an Alpine skiing complex? If so, is there a sensible "umbrella" article to include it under? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- I looked it up again, it is not even a town. It is a small hamlet with 1200 inhabitants that is part of Goslar, a bigger town in the Harz region. The correct name is Goslar-Hahnenklee-Bockswiese. As in most of the small hamlets in the Harz mountains it is a tourist destination in the sense that it offers places to sleep for tourists visiting the Harz. If you want to keep the info it should be moved to the Goslar page. I fact, the German version of the wikitravel Goslar page lists the church in Hahnenklee as a Goslar tourist attraction.126.96.36.199 16:01, 26 November 2007 (EST)
- OK, then redirect to Goslar. One of the challenges in Wikitravel is that the terms "town," "village," "hamlet," etc., vary in meaning from place to place, making a consistent treatment of very small towns difficult. But I feel strongly that as long as someone may come here looking for info on Hahnenklee, the article name should be kept as a redirect, at the minimum. We do the same for far smaller towns than this one. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 3 December 2007 (EST)
It does not meet our copyleft. This image is "Multi-licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license".
- Delete. -- Tatata7 03:54, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:33, 7 December 2007 (EST)