Archive for [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion]] acted on in October 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/October 2006]] or [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/December 2006]] for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.
Archive for [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion]] acted on in 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/October 2006]] or [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/December 2006]] for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.
The contend should be moved to the correct destination page, but I think this is a case where we dont want a redirect. I'd hate to see redirects croppin' up for every hotel and/or website out there... slippery slope imho. Maj 11:54, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
Speedy delete. -- Ryan 16:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)
Delete. There's a Baylor County in Texas, but I think it's more likely that we'd use that name. There's also a Baylor, Montana, according to the Getty Thesaurus, and I can find it on geonames.org, but I can't really find it with any other tools. Geonames comes up with a post office (historical) and a school (historical) close to the dot for the town, but as far as I can tell there's just a field there now. At best this could be a disambiguation; otherwise I say drop it. --12:26, 25 October 2006 (EDT)
Not an officially recognised district of the city, but rather one drawn by the original contributor, presumably on religious and cultural grounds. Recommend deletion and transfer of content into appropriate official districts. Much of the content belongs within a relevant "Understand" section. Paul James Cowie 16:56, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
It doesn't need to be officially recognised to be useful to travellers. I don't know Jerusalem. Is this more useful than official names? Pashley 19:23, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
The name "Mea Shearim"  is overwhelmingly more common for the area. That said, it's not really a destination in the Wikitravel sense, because the Haredi (the more common spelling of "Chareidi") locals are not keen at all on tourists traipsing around and there are no places to stay. Jpatokal 21:40, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
Delete. A navigational menu for national parks in India, which is not something we normally use templates for per Wikitravel:Using Mediawiki templates. I'm in favor of keeping the template policy as-is, but there have been a few of these sorts of templates created lately, so others may have differing opinions. -- Ryan 03:14, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
Delete - I tried to crop this one but I find it hard to keep it useful without violating privacy rights. - Ricardo (Rmx) 22:47, 1 November 2006 (EST)
Well, I could probably Photoshop it into a useful form but I'm not entirely sure what it is and whether it could be used in an article even without privacy issues. Is it worth the effort? --Paul. 14:01, 2 November 2006 (EST)
I suppose blurring the faces or something like that would solve the privacy issue. I'm trying to check if we can just re-upload the fixed image or if it needs to be saved with a different name before it's uploaded again. Ricardo (Rmx) 10:04, 3 November 2006 (EST)
As a tragically bad speller, I'm wondering if there isn't a benefit to having fat-finger redirects. I mean, it's not like they take up space or clutter the card catalog or something... maybe a topic for a Wikitravel:Redirect guidelines discussion? Maj 12:34, 5 November 2006 (EST)
Delete. Re:Maj - I'm all in favour of redirects to common mispellings found on the web or in literature. I wouldn't oppose "fat-finger" redirects also but I think they might give us a hard time to tell from bogus articles.
Delete - I don't think this is a common enough misspelling that a redirect is needed. -- Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)
We've been fortunate enough not to ban any users from editing Wikitravel so there's no need for this template. The very very few times the block feature has been implemented is for scripts that haven't gone through the proper channels to operate on Wikitravel. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:24, 3 November 2006 (EST)
Delete. Wikitravel prides itself on inclusiveness, so let's avoid things like templates for banned users. -- Ryan 01:32, 3 November 2006 (EST)
Sleeper suburb of Helsinki, no attractions and no places to sleep. Not sure where, if anywhere, it can be redirected though... Jpatokal 07:50, 7 November 2006 (EST)
Unsure about this one but I'd feel inclined to keep it. Even by just letting travellers know that Kerava is just a sleeper suburb with no places to sleep, the article could be useful to someone - say, people who travel for family reasons or something and have to move around there or whatever. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (EST)
Keep. Seems to me that if there's room for Congress, there's room for this one. Check out Talk:Congress for an airing of the issues, including ways to handle the absence of places to sleep -- remember that the "can-you-sleep-there" criterion is more about the kind of place than about whether it has actual hotels. In this particular case, the difficulty that Jani mentions, about finding a redirect, argues for keeping it. (Just how big is this place?) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:12, 8 November 2006 (EST)
I took a second look and would now myself vote to keep -- I'd always figured it was a district of something else, but no, it's actually incorporated as a city and has a population of 30,000. There are still almost no sights, but hey, at least they have the Garlic Festival(tm) every August, a festival so well known that I lived ~25 km away for ten years and never heard about it. Jpatokal 10:56, 13 November 2006 (EST)