Per Wikitravel:What is an article?, this content should probably be merged to the appropriate city or region article, and the page turned into a redirect. But I'm not at all familiar with the area, so I'll leave this decision to the vfd page. --PeterTalk 18:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Hmm-m. I suspect the Dieng Plateau is better known under that name than the main town in the area, Wonosobo. It might make more sense to keep this article at Dieng Plateau and redirect Wonosobo there. Jpatokal 21:51, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Yes, especially since we do not yet have a Wonosobo article. Pashley 04:05, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. This blog, by someone who's been there, implies that you can sleep there, although the "Franglish" is such that it's difficult to be sure. For probably the hundredth time, I say: we really need some new model for handling locales that are overwhelmingly rural, yet may have lodging, etc., outside the towns ("destinations") and interspersed among the boonies. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:07, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Uploaded as unprotected by copyright, but I want to challenge that. As someone pointed out on the talk page, the map is pretty out of date anyway, but in addition, if you compare it to the current map at http://www.kotsu.city.osaka.jp/foreign/english/subway/img/map.pdf, it is quite obvious that it was originally copied from there, and the site is posted as copyright, all rights reserved.
My hunch was that we should redirect this one to Honolulu, but a persistent user keeps turning it into a rather well developed article. Should this be a district of Honolulu? A separate city article? --PeterTalk 20:26, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Sources seem to differ as to whether it's a "neighborhood" in Honolulu or a "suburb" of Honolulu. Either way, I feel fairly strongly that the article shouldn't be deleted, although it might be renamed/redirected. Let's do some research on this one; at the very least, Honolulu is probably big enough to merit some districting, and this could be a start. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:33, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Gentleman, I am a native of Honolulu and went to school for 13 years at Punahou (the same school that President-elect Obama attended from 1971 to 1979). That school happens to be located in Makiki which I can assure you is an old, established neighborhood--most definitely not a suburb by any stretch of the imagination. Makiki is in the heart of Honolulu, about a mile from downtown (West), two miles from Wakiki (South) and about two miles (east) of the University of Hawaii. It is certainly not a separate city! You may want to consult a map. Given that you do not live here, what you are not aware of is that Makiki is starting to generate a tremendous amount of interest and tourist traffic because of its association with Barack Obama, who was born in Kapiolani Hospital (in Makiki) and grew up a few blocks from the high school that we both graduated from. Frankly there was not a lot of interest in this neighborhood from outsiders until Obama burst on the scene. This is a very well researched piece. What's more Makiki deserves the recognition. -- Ian Brizdle
Thanks to Ian Brizdle for the clarification. Although he has clarified the situation, I think he has made a case for incorporation of this article in the Honolulu article. Something like the Columbus, Ohio breakdown may be appropriate. Merge and Redirect into and to Honolulu. 2old 13:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)
With this background, I think the course of action is clear: Rename and move to Honolulu/Makiki (which will automatically generate the redirect) and modify the root Honolulu article to point to it as a district. The rudiments of a districting scheme for Honolulu are already taking shape anyway; may as well help it along. (You fit 13 years at Punahou into the period from 1971 to 1979? I'm impressed. :-) ) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Sorry for the confusion, I graduated in '98 and attended Punahou since Kindergarten. Obama attended '71 to '79. My error with the (). -- Ian Brizdle
Nice start to an article, unfortunately this region badly overlaps with our existing Dead Sea, West Bank and Negev regions. Redirect to West Bank...? Jpatokal 22:24, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Not to be disrespectful, but I think you lack a certain knowledge in the geography of Israel, and I don't think you should automaticly propose to delete regions, just as I shouldn't delete regions in France or Syria, without even discussing and asking about it BEFORE.
Here are some explanations:
1 - "The Judean Desert is not a region.."
The Judean desert was for thousands of years and still is a very clear geographic region. It is considered a region of its own in Israel, just like the Carmel, Gush-Dan, the Galilee and the Negev, unlike the West Bank, which is a political definition, and the Dead Sea, which is a lake, not a region. Only the Negev is another real region in Israel, and it BORDERS with the Judean Desert, it does not overlap it.
2 - "Its already written about in other articles.."
As I said, the Judean desert is an actual a region in Israel, unlike the West Bank and the Dead Sea. The fact that it wasn't mentioned is wrong. And worse, now that it is mentioned, you wish to delete it because people just included it in the regions around it. Well, two wrongs won't make a right. Wikitravel should bring the correct information about the diffrent regions in Israel, and we shouldn't redevide Israel as we see fit because someone already wrote about it somewhere.
3 - Dead Sea refrences
If anything, we should delete the article "Dead Sea", it is not a region, it is a lake, and worse, its a lake between two diffrent regions in two countries. Its like creating an article about the Mediterranean Sea, or about the Lake Superior, though its the same lake, its devided into diffrent regions and diffrent countries, and travelers should get information about the region/country they are going to, not about the lake itself. It might be a helpful article, due to the fact that the Dead Sea is unique, but it should definatly not replace the articles about the actual regions it is located in, both in Israel and in Jordan.
4 - West Bank refrences
The West-Bank is the a political region of a diverse area. It DOESN'T overlap the Judean Desert. The Judean Desert is partly in the west-bank(and btw, more than half of the Judean Desert is inside the "green line" and not in the west bank), like other geographical regions in Israel such as the Shephelah, the Judean Mountains, Jerusalem, the Lower Galilee and so on... because it is a political region, determaned by the truce lines set by Israel and Jordan in 1949. and furthermore, the Judean desert is populated mostly (with the exception of Jericho and small bedwin villages) by jewish communities and cities, and therefore even the travelers' experience is the same as inside the "green line", and not as in the arab cities of the west bank. So other than a political statement, there is absolutly no reason to move the Judean Desert article into the West Bank article.
5 - General overlaping and mistakes in the ISRAEL articles
The regions that are written in the "Israel" article are not accurate and greatly overlap each other.... for example, the Jezreel valley and Beth-Shaan valley both have articles of their own, even though they are both parts of the Lower Galilee.
The Sea of the Galilee also has an article of its own, even though again, its a lake not a region. The western coast of the sea is the Galilee, while the eastern coast belongs to the Golan heights region. My plan is to fix those overlaps and errors, and thats why I started by creating the Judean desert value, in hopes of giving the travelers in Israel good, true and reliable information, which will tell them more about the diffrent regions in Israel, with the historical and current status of each region, with good intresting pictures from the diffrent areas, and most importantly, clean from any political references, as much as possible. And as you can see, I gave information both on the southern part of the desert, like Ein-Gedi and Masada, and also about the northen part of the desert which is in the West-Bank, such as Jericho and Qumaran. From the travelers POV, and since there are no palestinian towns in the region (again besides Jericho), also from the Israelis and Palestinians POV, this region is the same as the Galilee or the Negev. The only diffrence is political, but this is not WikiPolitics, its Wikitravel.
I hope you will help me to improve the ISRAEL articles, instead of just leaving them the way they are just because its already here regardless if its accurate or not.
Hi Govrin. I have a few comments. First, while you're right that designations like "West Bank" are political in nature, we do sometimes need to make regions based on political boundaries. You can't deny that the experience for a traveler is going to be different depending on whether he is in the west bank or not!
But of course, that isn't necessarily enough to justify using "West Bank" as a specific article title. What it seems you're proposing is a reorganization of the regions of Israel. Rather than just go and create a new article for a region whose content is apparently covered (at least in part) in other articles, I would suggest you discuss the matter at Talk:Israel and garner support for a reorganization of the regions. To do so, you should probably have a good idea of what those regions should be, keeping in mind that they should cover the entire area of Israel without overlaps or gaps.
Agreed with LtPowers. I could be argued into changing Israel's regions (esp. Dead Sea, as you note), but as it stands right now, the cities you list as being in the Judean Desert, namely Ein Gedi, Jericho and Arad, are already covered in the Dead Sea, West Bank and Negev articles respectively.
I've opened a discussion on Talk:Israel, let's continue there and put this on hold for time being. Jpatokal 10:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)
i'm sorry, but you are simpley mistaking.
I think as an Israeli for all my life, I have a more inside view about the regions in Israel and the diffrent atmospheres in the west bank and in the green line. The majority of the Judean desert, including the parts in the west bank, is considered to be Israel de facto. it has only jewish cities, and it is protected by barriers and the military. Traveling there is like traveling in Tel-Aviv or Haifa, its NOTHING like being in Hevron or Beth-Lehem. I should know, since as a native to this place, I traveled here more than other people and more than I myself traveled in other places.
and either way, like i said, more than half of the Judean desert is outside the west bank.
As for the Dead Sea, like it or not, its simply not a region. Its not up to you and me to determan the regions, just like the Tibet article is based on the chinese government value of Tibet, and not by our standards. China decides its regions, Sweden decides its regions, and Israel decides its regions.
As for the coverage in other articles... I think its fairly stupid to assume that if the cities gathered here have values of their own, the region doesn't need to be explained. This is like deleting the value of "California", because places like LA and San-Diego have values of their own.
This region is more than just those few chosen cities... sadly, instead of imrpoving and expand about it and give more information about the regions that are yet to be talked about, you prefer to shut it down and simply keep the old ones not because they are right, but because "they were here first".
anyway, I was highly disappointed by the very inactive and unincoraging approach of this community. I wondered why so many articles and values about diffrent countries and regions here are so low on information, if they even have anything. Now i know why. Sadly, i cannot help to develop a community that doesn't welcome development. I am deleting my article and the pictures i have posted, and i will no longer try to contribute here. I hope some day, you will understand that acting like this only damages wikitravel, and keeps it to a limited group of "elite" people with limited knowledge.. instead of being the open project it should be.
Outcome: Kept, but discussion continues at Talk:Israel.
Delete I've been through Alicante airport, and it's not really big enough to warrant an article under current policy. Also, the text on this page is about Madrid Airport, so is irrelevant anyway! Nrms 10:51, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Merge and redirect into the Alicante article. AHeneen 13:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. This was created by the same user who did Airport Madrid below - he's probably connected to the car hire service that's linked to in both. Gorilla Jones 23:32, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. It's been more than 14 days. However, someone who knows the area should check to see if any of it is worth merging before it goes. Pashley 06:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)
The only bits of info useful to the traveller are the distance from the town and destinations. These are covered in the Alicante article (at least serving airlines are included, but the Airport's page doesn't tell you which airline serves where, so the 2 can't be easily merged, unless someone really wants to try and research it all). The rest of the article is an airport history (not overly relevant to the traveller in the case of an airport) and services more relevant to aircraft operators, so outside the scope of Wikitravel.
Think a straight Delete can be done. Only linking pages are teh vfd page and User:Sasha/temp (which is just a long list of pages!)
I'm nominating this one for deletion just to see what happens. I don't think we generally have articles for tourism associations, do we? Texugo 07:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Yah, thats not right, Delete. :) Keep smilin' Edmontonenthusiast 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Merge into Alps? It would seem a shame to lose this information about sustainable tourism in such a heavily visited region. Tarr3n 10:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
I was going to say "keep", since I think it could become a viable article. Travel topic, perhaps? However, I Checked for copyvio and found the entire article is word-for-word from Wikipedia .
So now I say trash existing text, redirect this to the [Alps] article, and add a sentence or two and a link to alpinepearls.com there. That lets us put links to Alpine pearls in the articles for towns that are involved in the program. If someone later undoes the redirect and writes a real article on these pearls, that's OK too. Pashley 06:10, 19 November 2008 (EST)
I speedied it, but immediately restored it. The text was written by a user with the same name on both sites; assuming it's the same person, it's not a copyright violation. I say just redirect it. LtPowers 10:39, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Delete. Texugo asked the right question, and there's no compelling affirmative answer. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
I'm starting to reconsider my position here. There is precedent for articles listing destinations bound by some notable, "official" distinction, e.g. UNESCO World Heritage List and UNESCO Creative Cities. Is UNESCO less a "tourism association" than the people behind this, just because it's associated with the United Nations? I now incline to keep, but let's discuss once more, then put it to bed. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:52, 30 December 2008 (EST)
That's the right question, but it contains the word "generally" and this may be an exception. It is travel-related & Tarr3n makes a good point as well. It is not a destination or region in our usual senses, but the info seems worth having. I'm not sure if it should be a travel topic, a redirect to a short section in Alps, or what, but I do not think it's an outright delete. Pashley 23:13, 25 December 2008 (EST)
Result: Consensus is to keep the information found here. A merge can be discussed on the talk page. LtPowers 08:18, 26 January 2009 (EST)
New article, entire content apparently copied from another site. I'm not certain if the article itself should be deleted or not. Pashley 08:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I'd say redirect it to South Costa Rica or Uvita for the time being. Even if you can sleep there, which isn't clear, it doesn't look huge enough to need its own article. From the description, it sounds more like a day-attraction than a multi-day destination. LtPowers 09:09, 13 November 2008 (EST)
why does the other park have their info... this is the first Marine Park, one of the few places in the world where you can see the whales from the south and northern hemisphere... the info that i put there was my own, taken from one of my websites... if you take this out, than take out all th eother parks in the worls... you cannot sleep in any of the costa rican parks... but it is a travel destination...
so please put it back...
the rules are not clear... they say not to add links in the main page of costa rica... but they are alot... i add one and they take it down.... helloooooooooooooooooo
Learn how to not sound so whiny and how to use a signature (use for tildes, or see at the bottom SIGN YOUR NAME). Also if you were a little more lenient, you'd see there are real reasons for this. I don't get why you said "then take out all the other parks", does that mean you've worked extensively on every single park that has a travel guide on this website? I find that very untrue! You still need to learn some, and HELLO to you too;)! Keep smiling, eetalk 18:29, 14 November 2008 (EST).
There are two separate problems here. One is the text from another site. See my comments at User_talk:Geinier for that.
The other question is whether this park gets its own article. As I said above, I don't know the answer on that. However, in general, parks don't get separate articles; see policy at Wikitravel:What_is_an_article?. Nobody's saying there should not be text for parks, just that usually it should be in a region or town article rather than a separate article on the park. Huge parks like Angkor Wat or Disneyland are exceptions.
My guess would be something like that is needed here, but I do not know the area, so I cannot say what. Pashley 08:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Keep. Based on this resource, it looks like one can "sleep" there in a tent, if nothing else, and we've accepted other national parks in other countries with comparably rustic accommodations. The bogus text isn't grounds for deletion; normal policy is to clean that up, rather than delete the article. I'm going to Costa Rica in a few weeks and would use this article if it was in shape by then. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:38, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Result: Delete as apparent copyvio. I've deleted it and recreated the article as a redirect to Uvita. LtPowers 08:24, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Delete. This article is nothing more than a magnet for controversy. Just about every edit has been disputed, since the articles creation. Its useless as a disambig - who would really search for British Isles, and expect to be disamb'ed to Isle of Man, Ireland etc. Leave WIkipedia to argue what it means, we don't need it here. In policy terms, it should be deleted because it is not a destination, not a region, and there is no clear place to redirect it to. --Inas 18:11, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Keep It is a standard geographical term. It was proposed for deletion before and kept, see talk page. Pashley 18:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)
What is the basis for the standard? See wikipedia British_Isles_naming_dispute . The best standard they can quote there is a difctionary and British atlases. Do we want a piece of this? The last vfd ended in trying a disambig. I support those who decided that it was worth a try, but it has clearly now failed. Again, the question should not be if it is a standard term, but does it advance the guide, and help the traveler. --Inas 19:11, 18 December 2008 (EST)
You saying British Isles isn't a region is wrong. It is a geographical area of Britain/Ireland if my memory is correct. Please be careful, because it does exist, the thing is, that there are multiple terms for these areas, although not specifically that whole are alike: Britain, UK, United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Ireland (incl N Ire), United K, Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Northern Ire., GB, etc. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:17, 18 December 2008 (EST).
Sorry - I mean it isn't a wikitravel region, not that it isn't a region at all. It isn't one of the regions we have chosen to define as a wikitravel region article. Please take the time to read the wikipedia article, before you try to conclude what it contains. . Thanks. --Inas 19:30, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks! But my saying in what it is was correct  so there is no point in that truly. Anyways, I think it's fine as a redirect as it is a commonly used term but it still isn't what were after. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:33, 18 December 2008 (EST).
Its fine to say it is a commonly used term - but what is it a commonly used term for? A redirect is only useful if it can redirect to something. It is apparent there is no consensus on what to redirect it to, and it is going to continue to be a source of contested edits and reversions. We have to manage this stuff for some areas, because it essential information for the traveller. But noone is going to travel to the British Isles and wonder where they will end up. Its of no use to the traveller at all, and we don't want to be wikipedia. To back up what you say, you should go to the article, and revert the latest change, which disagrees with the link you just posted. --Inas 19:45, 18 December 2008 (EST)
What change? It is usually a word used to describe Ireland and UK. It isn't really travel related, but many people know it and people may type it up, where they get a disambungion page which is fine cause it links to all those places. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:03, 18 December 2008 (EST).
EE, it doesn't currently point to those places. The last change removed Ireland. Have a look at the current article and the most recent changes. If you feel it should include Ireland, I suggest you revert the change, and join in the fun. --Inas 21:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)
One of the few things I'm rather conservative about is geographical terms. For example, I prefer Calcutta and Burma to Kolkatta and Myanmar, though of course I want disambig pages for the other names. So as I see it, "British Isles" is a sensible thing to have a disambig for and of course the term includes Ireland; the whole point of it is to have name for Britain+Ireland+miscellaneous.
So if we keep it, it needs some rewriting. I'd be willing to have a shot at that. I think it can be made acceptable to all by drawing a clearer distinction between the mostly obsolete geographical term and the political divisions.
On the other hand, some folks do seem to object to the term and arguing about it is pointless. I will not object too strongly if the consensus is to delete. Pashley 20:32, 18 December 2008 (EST)
I just feel bad about reverting a change that I feel was made by a contributor in good faith. I appreciate your offer to have a go at the page. --Inas 21:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. Per last time, this should be a disambig page that tells the traveler why the term is deprecated and then point the traveler in the right direction for info. -- Colin 21:08, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. But the situation is a little different this time—it is now a Wikitravel region, although it has not yet been developed as one. If we decide to appease current political correctness, we could remove it from the hierarchy, but that's a discussion for Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. If left a disambiguation, though, it clearly should include Ireland. That's what the term British Isles has always meant, and the politics of it are not particularly relevant. --PeterTalk 21:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. Disambiguation is critical here, and we don't want to leave someone hanging should they choose to search for this term. If contentious editing is a problem, protect the page; the links within aren't going to change. LtPowers 21:46, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Hmm, I still say keep, but I'm not sure it should be a disambiguation page. Right now there's no good way to follow links from Europe to Ireland, because British Isles doesn't link to Ireland, even though Ireland IsIn the British Isles region! I'm all for using another term if the Irish truly despise "British Isles", but we have to group them together somehow. LtPowers 21:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Peter and LtPowers have it right. This issue is bigger than just a delete, due to the Europe regioning, so this article isn't really a candidate for deletion, and for now needs to include Ireland to avoid it being orphaned out of Europe. Its clear that it can't just be a disambig page, which is what lead me down this path originally. Linking to a disambig page is wrong at the best of times, but to link there from Europe is clearly an error. In any event this dicussion needs to move to Talk:Europe/Hierarchy --Inas 22:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)
I rewrote it. Comments on the actual rewrite solicited, here or on article talk page. Comment on broader issues to Talk:Europe/Hierarchy.Pashley 23:30, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Redirect but not sure where. Part of the problem with our clump of landmasses is that we have so many names... England/Wales/Scotland/N.I., Britain, Great Britain, British Isles, United Kingdom of whatever-we-are, etc. This means it is confusing for people from here (like myself) as well as travellers. Perhaps what we need is a single page that covers everything as a central "where to go next" and have the redirecting terms protected to prevent them from being changed (with a note on the relevant talk pages to explain why this is being done).
I know it sounds a fairly bureaucratic solution, but it may be the easiest way of aleviating the confusion? Nrms 07:08, 22 December 2008 (EST)
I think this is sort of silly, but if there is objections the only other term I really would find useful is British-Irish Isles, so what about a move and redirect to there? --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 07:42, 22 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. I understand why this term causes such controversy due to the political connotations of the word "British", but unfortunately there is no other geographical term that I am aware of for the island group in question. Sermann's suggestion of British-Irish Isles unfortunately has no precedent that I am aware of, and, to me at least, would imply that it was a guide to all the little islands that lie off the coasts of the bigger islands we call "Great Britain" and "Ireland". I have to agree with Nrms that perhaps locking the page and letting the debate rage on the Talk Page may be the best solution. Ultimately this is supposed to be a Travel Guide, which people turn to for help with travelling. The page needs to stand for that reason, but I see no reason for it to be any more detailed than it is already. Certainly the text about the Irish objections to the term should stay. Tarr3n 05:08, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Keep, but as a disambig listing the bits and pieces under it, not a full-blown article, and call the region in Europe with the name "United Kingdom and Ireland" (two links to two countries). Jpatokal 06:32, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Please contribute this point of view to Talk:Europe/Hierarchy as the arguments there run against this change, and preserving the article as a region. --Inas 19:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Speedy Delete. This term is archaic, hegemonic and widely resisted in Ireland. It is an assertion of a particularly resented British claim to Ireland and over the Irish people. Nothing more, and nothing less. Anybody with a scintilla of honesty should have no problem understanding the politics of this term. If in doubt, go to Wikipedia's "British Isles" page and its 24 archives of Irish resistance to this blast from the days of Britannia ruling the waves. 'Atlantic Archipelago' and 'Britain and Ireland' are two of many alternative names which do not cause offense. 18.104.22.168 22:09, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Speedy Delete.Britian isn't comprised of two islands. Ireland is seperate and non related. IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) is more approriate
Keep, as an article! This is a commonly known geographic term or region that travellers would refer to. It doesn't necessarily need to be part of any hierarchy and could be mentioned as part of the Islands of the North Atlantic Remember the traveller comes first. - Huttite 01:19, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Result: I'm cutting the Gordian knot. The article has been moved to British and Irish Isles (after deleting the copy+paste that was already there). I'm leaving the redirect as an extremely likely search term. This should be a reasonable compromise. LtPowers 08:51, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Delete. We only allow airport articles for the largest ones in the world—city-sized airports. I'm pretty sure right now that's Kansai, Heathrow, and O'Hare. --PeterTalk 23:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. Merge any useful content into Madrid that isn't already there, but it doesn't look like there would be much. Gorilla Jones 23:31, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Delete - This article was created by the same user who created Alicante Airport above. The same user created these two articles on es: this week as well, and all the text was copyrighted by http://www.victoriacars.com, which is the company this user is trying to promote. At a glance, these two articles here on en: appear to be translations of that copyrighted material. This in addition to Peter's reason, which in itself was already enough for deletion. Texugo 23:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. I refrained from listing this when I added Airport Alicante above as I wasn't sure of Madrid airport's size. Given Peter's comments, I assume it isn't big enough to warrant its own article, so support the deletion. Plus there is the possible copyvio issue, although if the user is connected to the site, would it be copyvio? Nrms 06:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. But... Oh the wonders of a slippery slope :) what is a city sized airport? Changi, Atlanta, Frankfurt...? Is it the sleep issue that's important? something as minuscule as Copenhagen Airport has a Hilton hotel on it's grounds. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 07:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)
Delete We recently turned JFK into a redirect. This does not need a redirect because it does not have a well-known name independent of the city. Pashley 08:28, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Result: Delete. Contact an admin if you want the information for merging purposes. LtPowers 09:30, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Merge and redirect to Uki - Uki city is not close to being big enough to districtify, though the station name is taken from this neighborhood, so we should leave a redirect at least. Texugo 01:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Result: Merge. Note that you don't have to start a VFD to propose a merge. LtPowers 09:39, 28 January 2009 (EST)
content does not make sense. --Rein N. 14:06, 20 January 2009 (EST)
It's just a talk page; no harm in just blanking it, is there? LtPowers 18:25, 20 January 2009 (EST)
Speedy delete. Content-less talk pages are candidates for speedy deletion. They're not a priority by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think it's worthwhile that we speedy them as we see them—if an article has a talk page, I tend to check it before making any possibly contentious edits. Speaking for myself, I'd rather save my time if it's empty. --PeterTalk 00:41, 2 February 2009 (EST)
Delete - Not a valid article - we don't do articles on websites. The content should be moved to the relevant district page. I suspect most of it is double listed too, but the listings do not have any contact information. Posted by an anonymous user, that I welcomed! But I cannot guarantee that they will realize that they are wasting their time and ours. Same user created several new Prague district pages that I think can be salvaged. - Huttite 06:44, 21 January 2009 (EST)
Speedied on sight, didn't even realize there was possible content in there... Jpatokal 11:27, 21 January 2009 (EST)