Delete. This page is just an advertisement, for Spaceships Campervans. The same information has been splattered all over the site by the same author, in many city articles, and in three new articles. There is NO campervan information in this article, only information about one campervan company and their vehicles. I would say merge if there was some information to actually merge. --Inas 22:11, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Agree, not a valid article in itself. Jtesla16 22:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Delete. If there's any info worth saving (I don't know Oz so cannot tell), move it into Driving in Australia. Pashley 06:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
No Delete. What if we remove the external link. The other info is worth having as there are a lot of companies for campervan rentals though several alternatives; plus we add a link to Driving in Australia.
Image:Tehran from Highway.jpg - you got this image from Flickr , but most images on Flickr are NOT compatible here... it says "all rights reserved", only images that say "CC-by-SA" and that don't say "NC" or "non-commercial" are compatible with Wikitravel
Image:Dizin05.jpg - this one is ok here, but you must add the author and license info or it will be deleted
Image:UTEH gates.jpg - this one is ok here, but you must add the author and license info or it will be deleted
Only content is copied straight from wikipedia. Too fine grained, corrected information can fit as a single listing in Florida Panhandle. Jtesla16 20:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep - Statement above is ridiculous. The two pages are not even closely related: 18,139 bytes on Wikitravel vs. 2,871 bytes on Wikipedia? All content is either Public Domain or my own creation. Perhaps you have some other agenda? Someone could just as easily claim that Disneyworld and Everglades National Forest are copied from Wikipedia. gamweb 02:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Unsure. If we're going to do an article on retirement (and I'm not sure if that's within the scope of Wikitravel) then it should be a general article topic, and not specific to Thailand. Additionally, this article duplicates a significant amount of information from the Thailand article that isn't retirement-specific (currency, weather, etc). At a minimum it should be cleaned-up to be retirement-specific, and if the subject is deemed to be outside of Wikitravel's scope then it should be removed. Let's give it some time and see what happens. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Keep Even though its not a 100% travel topic but it still includes and relate to travelling to other country for specific purpose which is itself considered as a travel topic.
Well whichever country a person would like to live after retirement is his/her choice. But while choosing a country, he/she needs to consider different information, facts and destinations of the country. So well, one of the seventh most famous destination of the world for retirement is Nongkhai, Thailand, which is of course not same as other countries. So, giving information about Retirement in Thailand is providing all the information a person would need to know while choosing Thailand or while travelling to Thailand.
Whereas some facts about the country (currency, weather, etc.) i agree to keep it on Thailand page rather than putting in this article. --Borndistinction 05:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Retirement is not travel. LtPowers 11:40, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Let me expound a bit. Yes, retirement is a reason for travel. However, we don't usually include separate articles on various reasons for traveling. As a travel guide, we are largely neutral on the subject of why someone is traveling. To make matters worse, the entire second half of the article in question is not specific to retirement at all. Every bit of that information is either redundant to the Thailand article, or should be merged there. LtPowers 13:43, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep Absolutely, retirement abroad doesn't concern travel. Well, agreed. By the way, were you guys former comical-contestants on American Idol? Thai-blogs
The point, my friend, is that the travel one takes while retired is essentially no different from the travel one takes at other times in one's life -- thus our standard travel guides work just fine for retired people. LtPowers 19:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure this article should be kept. However, a general article on Retiring abroad would be valid for much the same reasons that Working abroad and Teaching English are. Thailand would get a prominent place in any such article. Pashley 18:30, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Not travel relevant – cacahuatetalk 21:51, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Why on Earth would you consider it "Not travel relevant"? Retiring abroad is one way to travel, and a major reason to retire abroad — whether Thailand or Costa Rica or wherever — is to use it as a base for further travel. This is not outside our scope. Wikitravel is a travel guide, not just a tourist guide. Articles like War zone safety or Teaching English are valuable. This may have the wrong scope — perhaps we just need a general Retiring abroad article — and may need other work. but I'd say it is obviously relevant. Pashley 18:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
"Retiring abroad" is not "one way to travel". "Cruise ship" is one way to travel. "Segway" is one way to travel. "Retiring abroad" is a reason to travel, and we don't generally have articles on reasons to travel. We don't have articles on "Visiting family in Thailand," "Getting away from work in Thailand," or "Business travel to Thailand", and "Retirement in Thailand" is on par with those topics. LtPowers 19:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete, but with caveats. I'm not sure we should rule out retiring abroad as a topic on Wikitravel, but I do think we should delete this article. I would tend to consider retiring abroad to not be travel, but then again, that might be too conservative a position—you could consider retiring abroad the "final travel" (although that seems morbid now that I've written it). The reasons for a retirement abroad are broader than the desire to travel, but I still think travel is playing a role in the decision; one might move to Panama just to cut costs, but my hunch is that's just a perk for an adventurous older couple looking to explore the region and to have monkeys in the back yard and a tropical beach out front. I will suggest we delete this article, since it comes across as a tout piece for retiring in Thailand, and duplicates content in a way that ignores our site's basic organizing logic. So to be clear, I lean in favor of a general article on retiring abroad (if someone were to write it!), but not this article. --PeterTalk 02:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Lots of people like to explore and have monkeys and beaches -- what makes retirement significantly different than other reasons for travel? LtPowers 08:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
First off, like existing articles Working abroad and Teaching English, it is long-term. That puts a whole different slant on things than short-term travel. For whatever it is worth, I've done both of the ones I mention, and the classic backpacker Istanbul to New Delhi over land, and will probably retire abroad too. I am not much interested in writing for tourists and business travellers; to me, writing for the long-term travellers is far more interesting. Of course that does not go for all writers, but it is a point of view that deserves consideration.
Second, retirees have specific concerns. They are generally older, so health care is an issue. They are often on a fixed income. They may want to choose a place that has good transport links so they can visit home or have friends and family visit, and/or a place with links that let them explore the region; e.g. Thailand or Singapore have visa services and flights that would make exploring South East Asia fairly easy. Because they are making a long-term commitment to a place — moving all their worldly goods, leasing or buying a place, learning the language, ... — they may be more concerned about political stability and crime rates than a shorter-term visitor.
Third. retirees need different visas. Some countries (Thailand and Sri Lanka at least) offer visas specifically for retirement. Can one retire in a country that doesn't? How, short of making a large investment in a business or marrying a local?
Fourth, they generally use different services and often go to different areas. A tourist stays in a hotel; a retiree buys or rents a house or apartment. A tourist or businessman takes taxis or rents a car; a budget tourist may struggle with local busses. A retiree may buy a car or learn the bus routes. More generally, there are lots of "nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there" places; retirees want something else.
I'd say this article is worth keeping, with some cleanup. A more general article on Retiring abroad would be a really good idea. If this article is deleted, any worthwhile bits should be moved there. Pashley 16:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Absolutely Keep The article is packed with information and well written. Why delete such a gem? Also, from the comments above it seems that many people have lots of misconceptions about "retirement travel". Fact is, today there's a large class of people who are retiring younger, and with the means to afford international travel and even one or more residences abroad. "Retirement travel" does not mean that a retired persons simply moves to another land never to be heard from again. Rather, lots of people split their time between two or even three countries, sometimes moving with the seasons, other times changing locales to suit their personal, family or medical needs. Essentially, a lot of overseas retirees live a life that combines elements of the expat experience with the tourist experience. It's a huge group -- and in one that in fact includes more than a few Wikitravel contributors. Snub them at our own peril. SONORAMA 11:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Retirement travel, IMO, is a completely valid travel topic and deserves an article, for exactly the reasons that SONORAMA points out. But retirement in Thailand simply isn't the same thing. Keeping this one sets us on one of those slippery slopes we've been warned about. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:28, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep, Sonorama gives good reasons. Pashley 09:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Although a good article and thought, it would be better for AARP.2old 09:59, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep with strict focus It's a definite travel topic but currently the article is very general and e.g. the list of airports is redundant with the city articles. So it should focus on specifics for elderly traveller who would like to stay long-term in Thailand. Jc8136 10:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
These articles provide information as to guide travellers looking for destinations and their specialization in order to help travellers choose the country to visit for specific purpose. And medical tourism, golf, spas, diving are very popular ones that people specially travel for now-a-days to enjoy such activities. So i think these are few of the most important articles that people would consider before travelling as wikitravel is the website which guides travellers for travelling at different destinations with any reason of traveller's choice. Wikitravel aims to be a guide, isn't it so? So i strongly disagree to let them be deleted. --Borndistinction 04:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Keep The article has some good references to medical associations and clinics. The text is indeed a little too positive, almost as if it were copied from a brochure. However this can be improved and more balanced information introduced rather than deleting. And yes, lots of people do go to travel abroad for medical reasons -- it is a very legitimate travel topic. SONORAMA 11:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – cacahuatetalk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Keep As mentioned above, how justifiable would it be to have articles on other reasons to travel in specific countries such as Golf in Australia, but not one on Medical in Thailand. In fact, Med in Thailand is huge in comparison to say Golf in China and the stats in the article prove it. Thai-blogs
Keep I agree with User:Borndistinction as of course wikitravel aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.
Keep. It is a travel related article whose concept does match today’s requirements. People nowadays look more for this type of articles because they need a variety of information when they research. As wikitravel is a very popular travel guide getting the best travel website award by WEBBY AWARDS for the year 2007 [], people may consider this web too. So I agree for keeping this article. Barracuda 12:51, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Not sure. If it can be merged into the more general Medical tourism article (which should be kept!), then I'd say it should be. I do not know how practical that is, though. If it is not, then keep. Pashley 19:09, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Merge into Medical tourism and Thailand. There's some good information here which it would be a shame to lose, and as I commented above, I agree that Medical tourism is a valid topic.Tarr3n 08:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
If there's anything worthwhile merging, merge as above, else delete. JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. I would prefer to see this in User:Borndistinction's userspace until we figure out how to deal with Medical Tourism. Moreover, as others have said, there are significant touting problems and haphazard formatting preventing this article from appearing legit. And of course, if content can be incorporated into the article above, do that. --PeterTalk 01:18, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Keep --Sorry Colin, but you are wrong. The most significant difference between spas in Thailand and spas in other parts of the world is that Thai spas emphasize Thai massage. Thai massage is hardly available in most spas in The US, or if it is, it has to be booked in advance. Very very few spas in The US bind spa treatment with Buddhism, unlike Thailand. I think this article has stated quite clearly these major differences. .--Thai-blogs
Keep Every country has different cities and provinces specialized in certain different things... am i right? Thailand is also one of them as it specializes in Spas. In this article (as mentioned for Diving in Thailand above) has content specific to the country at which the country is popular for. That doesn't mean that if there are 100 types of spas around the world and Thailand would be specialized in all. So, this article has brought only those spas which are popular in Thailand but not all types.
Moreover, the spa destinations, spa packages, spa programs, Thai spa cuisine provided in this article are all specific to Thailand which the country specializes at. So of course it is not the same as any other country.--Borndistinction 04:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:01, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete - I have to agree with Colin, Spas should be listed in individual articles. If they are a specific reason to visit the country then surely a section on the Country page is enough. Tarr3n 12:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Keep I have to agree with the great brains of Tarr3n that there certainly ought to be categories listed in individual categories with a specific reason to visit the country, thus guaranteeing a certain section on the country page. "If they are" (if there are?) countries offering something different oustide of The US, then they out to be deleted, as, who knows? Having a massage elsewhere may be dangerous for one's health. -- Wikitravel = Double Standards? Thai-blogs
I don't want to get into a slanging match but I do resent the suggestion that I might be anti Thailand, or (worse?) pro-USA. I've never been to North America and it's not high on my list of places I'd like to visit (though given the current exchange rates between Sterling/Euro against Sterling/Dollar it's starting to look more attractive!). If this vfd had been for spas in USA, Spas in Wales or Spas in Chad I would have given exactly the same opinion. Tarr3n 04:39, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete. We prefer to keep information in the actual guide articles, rather than stripping them out into travel topics.... that only becomes necessary when there's an exceptionally large amount of info to write about them that can't fit in the Thailand article. There's plenty of room there to briefly discuss what sets Thai massages apart from those in other countries, etc. Individual spas should only be listed in the city that they are located in. Definitely delete and merge relevant info into the Thailand article – cacahuatetalk 21:48, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Delete, I'm not sure that this is a field of pursuit in the same way that, say, diving is. Does anyone travel to Thailand for the primary purpose of going to spas there? JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Keep Spa travel is a huge market including its own magazines, etc. Yes, there is a large class of people who like to travel the world to pampered at various spas. Agreed this might not be everyone's ideal form of travel - but it's definetly an article we shoud keep. If I was looking for a spa or legitimate massage in Thailand, for instance, it would be very nice to have info about them all in one article. SONORAMA 11:35, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Keep. Spas are a travel topic comparable to hot springs, rock climbing, and so on. The only problem with this article is that compared to most of what we have here, it's unbelievably, overpoweringly, obtrusively comprehensive -- and given our goals, that's not a bad thing. (It could use some de-touting and tightening, but that's a different story than deletion.) I'd like to see it renamed to something like "[[Spas/Thailand]]" so that it's clearly a descendant node from the main Spas article, but no need to delete it. And yes, JYolkowski, spas are a big attraction in Thailand -- for better or for worse. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Question – How would this be any different than stripping hotels out into a "Hotels in Thailand" travel topic? I fail to see how it's necessary to list them in their own article rather than listing Phuket's spas in the Phuket article. And, if we do agree that the individual listings should be in the individual guides, then is there really so much to say about Thailand's spas that can't be condensed into 2-3 paragraphs in the Thailand article? – cacahuatetalk 19:45, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
If there is a difference, it's probably that "hotel" connotes practically the same thing anywhere in the world (a place to sleep, in a bed or something close, with a roof or equivalent over your head, and with a hotelier who runs the place and provides services), while "spa in Thailand" may -- or may not -- describe something qualitatively different from spas elsewhere in the world. In my opinion the first third of this article does provide information on what is distinctively Thai about Thai spas, arguing that the article's information justifies a keep. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete, per Cacahuate's comment. If Thailand's spas are unique enough to merit some discussion, that can be done in the Thailand article under "Do." And we don't want to maintain two lists of spas, one in this article, and one in each destination article. When/if deleting, we should sweep out these listings into the city articles. --PeterTalk 13:09, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, I was again was about to try and sort this mess out, but am hanging my head in defeat yet again. This may look like a lot of good info that we don't want to lose, but in fact it's just a long yellow-pages list, with no reviews or useful info – cacahuatetalk 14:50, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Following the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle, I'm about to delete this, but there is a particularly severe lack of consensus on this one. If nothing occurs to build a consensus for keeping it in the next 24 hours -- and simply restating positions already stated, without any changes, doesn't qualify -- it's gone. Going once, going twice... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:15, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete/Merge OK, so a bit late on this one! Reading the Goals/Non-Goals, most of this page is a Yellow Pages/Web Directory and possibly Encyclopedic in places. However, I do think there are some bits of text at the start that perhaps could be merged into the Understand section of the Thailand page, and I'm sure the list could be merged into local entires as necessary. Nrms 09:34, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I moved all the content into Goa article (except Government organisations in Goa). So it's in the right sections now, but very messy - hopefully someone will come and clean it up Sertmann 22:52, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete, or merge into Cancun. An attraction rather than a destination. We had another of these Mexican park/resorts a while back. What did we do with it? Pashley 01:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
Delete It is a beutiful spot, but does not meet the somewhere to sleep criteria. It is also covered in Mayan Riviera, as it should be. 2old 11:01, 26 September 2008 (EDT) Change mine to redirect as Pashley so wisely suggests. 13:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Keep It has somewhere to sleep criteria. It is not a park/ resort. And it is in the parks cathegory. That's why im doing this new page. Not all the wikitravel pages have all the issues, and so? A lot of people want to know about Xcaret and they dont know where is it. It is not my first contribution to Wikitravel or to Wikipedia, I do it for spanish version and this information is useful... Look for Xcaret at wikipedia sp. It is considered a page that can improve Yucatan wikiproject. Xcaret is a privately-owned park, and so Do Disney and Six flags, and the have thie own page... then, only USA parks can have their owns page?
Delete Clearly not travel-related. Can we speedy? Nrms 04:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Well I want to say delete, but why don't we let this chap edit some first and see if he will ACTUALLY contribute to anything. Really it's just the UP from what I know, and that you can really talk about whatever you like (as long as it's appropriate) although it doenst seem like they will really contribute. But why not give the person a chance to contribute? Keep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 16:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Link spamming Sertmann 04:34, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
It's a real destination , so we should probably keep it, with the addition of a standard small city template and a link from its containing region. --PeterTalk 19:09, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I say speedy delete it. We don't need that spam even if it's hidden away in the history. Recreate as an outline if you like. LtPowers 13:28, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep. This seems clear; as Peter points out, it's definitely a real place. Many other destination articles have started out as virtual garbage cans but been turned into something useful; in fact, that's what we'd like to see happen. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:16, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep. Its a valid destination. If we deleted every article with some spam in the history, we wouldn't have much of wikitravel left. --Inas 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Outcome: Kept and outlined, you live you learn Sertmann 11:03, 8 November 2008 (EST)
This is becomming a Spam magnet, 9 removals so far, so I suggest deleting the user page until the user put's something there himself. Sertmann 17:03, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I speedied it (again). Since it's a vandal created page, rather than a user-created page, I think it's appropriate to delete on sight. That won't stop the never ending spam, though, but I think several administrators have this page watchlisted. --PeterTalk 21:11, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Outcome: Speedied by Peter, and later removed spamming content from recreated page.
I don't see this ever turning into a usable (and/or relevant) article, maybe merge into Oz and NZ, but I don't really see any use for it there either... Sertmann 20:38, 21 October 2008 (EDT).
It could be improved, but I reckon IT IS usable. The site is called wikiTRAVEL, and bus tours are related to TRAVEL. Could you please leave an argument on you petition? James Throwl
Sure, maybe i was a bit rushed and rude, in the nomination text, sorry! As is the case with e.g. train travel, but unlike air travel. It's my opinion that Bus travel is very specific to the country/region where it takes place - and it's my experience from traveling (and I have traveled a lot) that there are very few common denominators to bus traveling around the world. So i feel it's much better left to the country or region page, than as a travel topic. But if you really feel you can make an article like this work, and actually extend it beyond Oz and Nz, I have no objections to withdrawing the nomination. Sertmann 21:32, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Walking is also related to travel, but I don't see a point in writing an article about it. And as it stands, I'm not even sure what the article is about: riding buses in general? tour buses? I can't think of a reason to have bus information separate from destination articles (as a general rule all our travel information should be accessible via the Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy). Why do you think this is necessary? --PeterTalk 21:46, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Delete. Real information on this topic is region-specific. -- Colin 17:38, 31 October 2008 (EDT)