YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/December 2006

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive for Wikitravel:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2006. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/November 2006 or Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/January 2007 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.


Can't think of any basis on which this might meet the Wikitravel:What is an article? guidelines or qualify as a valid exception. ~ 11:42, 16 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete, not a destination. Hypatia 06:03, 17 November 2006 (EST)
  • Certainly not a destination, but I wonder if there's any way to make an itinerary out of it? Not with the current content, obviously, but that can be replaced. Nah ... delete. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:39, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:36, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Center parcs[edit]

Doesn't fall within the scope of Wikitravel:What is an article? and redirecting it to Hotels or Travel accommodation seems too tenuous. ~ 09:21, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:40, 3 December 2006 (EST)


I'm not sure what the license of this image is and I can't find it on the DE Wikipedia like the uploader suggested. I checked the other site that the image can supposedly be found on but after a quick browse (ten minutes) I still didn't come up with this exact image. Delete to be safe. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:18, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Bump. I did make one request for German Wikipedians with sysop status to check out if and why the image was deleted off of DE Wikipedia. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:19, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Bump. Here's what I asked a "Bürokrat" followed by a translation contained within parentheses:
Ich bin Sapphire, ein Benutzer auf Wikitravel. Können Sie erklären warum dieses Foto gelöscht wurde? Vielen Dank! -- 01:35, 4. Dez. 2006 (CET)
(Hello, I'm Sapphire, a Wikitraveller. Could you please explain why this image was deleted? Thanks!)
Das Bild wurde gelöscht, weil es von Pixelquelle kommt. Siehe In der Lizenz von Pixelquelle steht, dass die Bilder nicht in eine Bilddatenbank hochgeladen werden darf. Das steht unser Lizenz hier entgegen, die jede Nutzung unter GFDL erlaubt. Das gelöschte Bild ist also nicht wirklich PDublic Domain gewesen. -- sk 10:15, 4. Dez. 2006 (CET)
(The photo was deleted because it came from Pixelquelle. See The license from Pixelquelle says that the images may not be uploaded to image depositories (or data banks). That condricts our (WP) license which permits use under GFDL. The deleted image was thus not public domain.) -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 09:08, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy delete


Delete. Picture of someone - doesn't feature on a userpage. -- Tim 20:02, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Tourism Board[edit]

  • Delete. I don't think this meets Wikitravel:What is an article? criteria, and the current article is basically just an empty huge city template. -- Ryan 16:13, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 8 December 2006 (EST)


  • Delete. Contravenes Wikitravel:Image_policy#People_in_photos - adds nothing to the article, no model release statement. -- Tim 18:43, 24 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. It could be salvaged by cropping or blurring the faces, but doesn't add that much to the article anyway. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:16, 8 December 2006 (EST)

The Americas[edit]

  • Delete. An article created seemingly solely for the purpose of allowing North & South America to be "isIn" something. I'd fear that an article like this one opens the door for "Northern Hemisphere" and other such articles, which really aren't of much use to a traveler. -- Ryan 21:13, 25 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete I agree, this is not needed and does not really help the traveler. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 21:21, 25 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:46, 9 December 2006 (EST)


  • Delete, no info about what or where this is. Xania 11:05, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted. There is a well-established precedent for deleting articles created for the purpose of trolling. -- Ryan 14:10, 9 December 2006 (EST)

The Americas[edit]

  • Delete. An article created seemingly solely for the purpose of allowing North & South America to be "isIn" something. I'd fear that an article like this one opens the door for "Northern Hemisphere" and other such articles, which really aren't of much use to a traveler. -- Ryan 21:13, 25 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete I agree, this is not needed and does not really help the traveler. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 21:21, 25 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted by Bill-on-the-Hill. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 22:06, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Dalian map.png[edit]

Another month, another request from me for a file I uploaded (that's also on shared) to be speedy deleted. --Paul. 08:31, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted per policy on images now on WT Shared. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:15, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Thousand Trails[edit]

  • Delete This is an article on a campground that has locations in 16 states and British Columbia. Does not meet are needs for an article and information about the campground should be added to individual articles. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 21:42, 25 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. One of the explicit non-goals is that Wikitravel does not want to become a yellow pages or web directory, and creating an article for a specific campground company pushes the site in that direction. -- Ryan 02:08, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 12 December 2006 (EST)


Author and source not specified. -- Peraltita 12:59, 15 November 2006 (EST)

  • This is an excellent photo, however, and I've been unable to find it elsewhere on the net, despite a fair bit of searching. Is there a way to e-mail the uploader directly to clarify copyright status? This one is worth going the extra mile before it's deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)
    • I have contacted the user. Below is the message.Hello, I am contacting you because your image has been nominated for deletion due to failure to produce copyright status, however, we really want to keep your image on Wikitravel. Would you please clarify the copyright status of Image:Gdl-catedral.jpg? We need to know who owns the image and copyright and if the image is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 (Full text of CC-by-SA 1.0). -- Peraltita 12:50, 15 November 2006 (EST) You can see this image and more links at your user discussion page at: Sincerely, Wikitraveler Peraltita -- Peraltita 22:44, 3 December 2006 (EST)
      • Hooray, user updated information. Picture saved!
      • Satisfies me. I'll move this to the archive later today, unless someone sees a reason not to. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:06, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:46, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Image:KY Oaks Mall RWC Job.jpg[edit]

An image advertising for Rob's Window Cleaning. Plus, it's not particularly illustrative. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 16:02, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy delete on all sorts of grounds. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:50, 12 December 2006 (EST)

LAN Airlines[edit]

  • Delete We don't do pages for airlines. Only content is a single link. Anyone think of a redirect? Maj 14:37, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete this, but we have several pages like Discount airlines in Asia or other continents. Should LAN be linked in one of them? Or shouls we start a new one for Latin America and put it there? Pashley 19:46, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:03, 14 December 2006 (EST)


Delete - Not an article. Just a list of the camps that are in Kruger National Park, which should be (and is) contained in Kruger National Park. -- Tim 18:48, 30 November 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:46, 8 December 2006 (EST)
    • On looking more at this, I'm still in favor of a delete, but there is actually some information here, notably some contact info, that should be transferred to the main article before this one is deleted. Suggest holding off on the actual delete until that stuff is moved. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:31, 14 December 2006 (EST)
      • The contact info is just phone numbers (from sanparks) that I added before noticing that this page is a total waste of space. I have now updated Kruger_National_Park#Main_Camps with the same information. NJR_ZA 09:51, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. No point duplicating data. Xania 20:51, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. No need for it. NJR_ZA 06:30, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome:Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:27, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Salt Cathedral[edit]

  • A bar, not a destination. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete As above. Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. --Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:57, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Paper travel guides[edit]

  • Delete. We're writing open source travel guides here. They're intended for both on-line and paper distribution; see goals and non-goals. A travel topic about proprietary paper travel guides doesn't belong here, any more than external links to proprietary Web site guides do. --Evan 11:07, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 11:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. I don't think a list of titles is really a goal -- Maj 11:50, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. Keeping track of which guides are useful does not help us accomplish our main goal of actually writing a guide. Leave that for other websites to. -- Colin 16:01, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Keep for the following reasons: --DenisYurkin 16:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)
    • Not a list of titles, the aim is to reflect opinion and recommendations of the community on every major guide.
    • Paper guides and Wikitravel are not competitors for most destinations: only few countries (US? UK?) can be planned and visited seriously with Wikitravel alone. For the rest of the world, travellers use Wikitravel together with some paper guide--and they complement each other. Better we help them than ignore the fact.
    • Where we're complete enough to compete with commercial paper guides, keeping silent about them is not a best strategy to keep readers with us.
    • We already have contributions like "recommended by LP, but proved bad place". This is the place to put aggregate opinions like "X's recommendations on restaurants are outdated more frequently than in Y".
    • Plans to distribute paper copies do not contradict to help people to share opinions on other guides even when we're close to implementing that plans (but have we started yet?) --DenisYurkin 16:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)
    • I don't see how having opinions on paper guides can divert people from contributing to Wikitravel. Also, if they reached the opinions on paper guide, before that they'll definitely read on their next planned destination.
    • I don't propose to link to or criticize on guides to specific destinations--only series.
  • Here is the VFD discussion for Travel guides, which was deleted on November 23, 2005. It doesn't add a lot to the current discussion, but since we've already deleted an article that was basically the same as Paper travel guides I think it sets the bar a bit higher for making a case that the new article should be kept. My personal opinion is that a guide to other travel guides is a slippery slope, and that it would be best to avoid such articles. Regarding the point that the new article should provide opinions on other travel guides, I'm not sure that's our job - we don't provide opinions on other travel web sites, and I don't see why something should be treated differently because it's printed in book form. --Wrh2
    • Travel Guides. A list of other travel guides, which sort of goes against the Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals. Per Colin's comment on the talk page: "I don't think we need to write a guide AND be the arbiter of which other guides are recommendable." -- Ryan 22:48, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)
      • Delete. I've redirected to Main Page in the mean time. --Evan 08:26, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)
      • Delete. I've stared at this orphan for ages, and just couldn't make up my mind. Guess I should have taken the initiative to start a discussion, huh? -- Ilkirk 20:05, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)
      • Delete Majnoona 09:39, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)

Wrh2, do you mean the same previous attempt as User:Sapphire is writing about in Talk:Paper travel guides? --DenisYurkin 19:11, 1 December 2006 (EST)
  • > I don't think we need to write a guide AND be the arbiter of which other guides are recommendable
I would put it bit different way: while writing a guide (and travelling for that writing) we frequenly use the book guides. And we find from experience that overall this series is good in this, and that series is bad in that. Of course we still contribute to Wikitravel (motivation hardly decrease after using a book)--but while we add some bits, we can help others to choose a guide that we found useful in addition to Wikitravel. --DenisYurkin 17:39, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • To summarize my point:
    • Community feedback on travel guides can be useful for travellers
    • Having such page won't affect negatively number of readers or contributions to Wikitravel
    • Wikitravel is the best online community I can think of where such opinion would be most balanced and up-to-date.
    --DenisYurkin 17:48, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Keep - under the auspices of the traveler come first policy, I'm inclined to say keep. Of course, it is hoped that Wikitravel can supply enough info that travelers won't feel the need to cough up bucks for a printed guide, but that's up to them. It is a free market. In addition, from my personal prospective, I feel that the travelers safety and happiness are a priority. And, if I can help them achieve these goals by pointing out some useful material, then I believe that I/we have made a great contribution to their journey, and in this way the traveler comes first goals have been achieved. Of course, all useful info should finally be absorbed into Wikitravel and specific info should not refer to other guides (such as, for example, 'see Rough Guide P? for more info on cafes') but be written in Wititravel itself, but I still contend that finally it is up to the traveler to make their own choice regarding what kind of guide they prefer, and rather than censor other possibilities, I'd prefer to display them openly. And, if Wikitravel is the best option, then travelers will obviously choose that. Anyway, my main point is that I feel that travelers' well being and safety should be the guiding principle of our efforts rather than protecting a specific source of information.....just throwing out some random ideas for thought here. The consensus is for delete, and so obviously I'll go along with that. WindHorse 22:02, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Keep, for reasons as WindHorse gives above, and with his caveat; I'll go along too if deletion's the consensus. I tell friends about Wikitravel and encourage them to use it and/or contribute; several have. But I'd also tell anyone planning a trip to China to consider picking up Lonely Planet or Rough Guide too. Since the traveller comes first, maybe we should tell them what we'd tell friends. Pashley 20:03, 4 December 2006 (EST)
    • I agree that TTCF calls for having this information available, because it is useful to the traveler and difficult to obtain elsewhere in a tout-free way. But hoo boy, does this article ever create possibilities for abuse. How about this as an idea? Move the content to some user's sandbox page -- User:DenisYurkin, you seem like the strongest advocate for the article, so maybe make it yours -- and then use the discussion page to work through, EXTREMELY carefully, the caveats and restrictions that should be placed at the beginning of the article, as to what content is appropriate and what should be avoided. Would that satisfy the competing viewpoints? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:01, 12 December 2006 (EST)
    • Sounds better than nothing for me :-) I already copied the content to User:DenisYurkin/Paper_travel_guides subpage, so we can continue there. I have two considerations having non-official page as a user subpage:
  1. we'll hardly have a single contributor except those participated in the above discussion, plus those few whom I catch in Travel Pub or future VFDs :-)
  2. more importantly, we can speculate for months on what can happen in theory, what conflicts appear and how we should prepare for them--but no single real conflict arise as long as 1.
Can we leave the page as officially allowed, but saying that it can be possibly deleted if it provokes too much conflicts? At least we'll know from experience rather than having purely theorethical speculations.
--DenisYurkin 09:14, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  • I'd say delete this one and use your own for debugging them. Those few folks you "catch in Travel Pub" are exactly the ones who can help resolve the issues, using your sandbox. Then, when it's ready and a discussion has occurred, re-create this page if appropriate. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:34, 16 December 2006 (EST)
  • What is still unclear for me is what exactly are the issues we have to resolve. In other words, how can we now that it's already time to move the page from user sandbox to the public namespace? --DenisYurkin 15:10, 17 December 2006 (EST)
I'm going to jump in here: Denis, there is never going to be a time where I'm going to be OK with putting this article into Wikitravel. There is never going to be a time when I accept your premise: that Wikitravel isn't good enough, so we're doing travellers a disservice if we don't tell them about "real" travel guides. Even our stubbiest, emptiest guide is better than a proprietary equivalent because it is Free -- free to add to, free to copy and share, free to improve upon. And I think that the public agrees: according to Alexa, we're the #2 travel guide site on the Web after -- and we're closing in fast. I don't think we have to apologize for the work thousands of Wikitravellers have put into this project, and I think we insult those volunteers if we do. So, to get to the point: the goal of your article is incompatible with the goals of this project, and I for one will never accept it. --Evan 21:16, 17 December 2006 (EST)
  • By the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle, it looks like time for this one to go. One last call for votes to the contrary; lacking any, I'll delete it later today. Denis, your voice has been heard, but you're in a minority on this one. Please go ahead and use your sandbox page to try to sway opinions, if you wish; I for one will be watching it to see if a satisfactory article results. Your enthusiasm for this idea is sincerely appreciated, but Evan's right, the case for the article meeting our goals has simply not been made to most people's satisfaction. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:54, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted, but see followup at User:DenisYurkin/Paper travel guides. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Bed & Breakfast BC[edit]

  • A B&B, not a destination. Ricardo (Rmx) 14:36, 6 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete As above and too short to be useful. Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. --Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:47, 21 December 2006 (EST)


I don't really see any concievable use for this. Jpatokal 03:00, 7 December 2006 (EST)

  • Delete Not used so definately not needed. Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:47, 21 December 2006 (EST)


Has the Norwegian Embassy really licensed this as CC by-sa 1.0? Jpatokal 03:20, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Even in the unlikely event that they have it's not very useful. Delete. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:52, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. --Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Jonboy 15:04, 22 December 2006 (EST)


  • Delete, some sort of outdoors park. Not an article. --Evan 08:04, 7 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete As above. Xania 08:02, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Jonboy 15:04, 22 December 2006 (EST)


No such place (Getty | Google | Wikipedia). ~ 13:29, 18 December 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. I agree. I think this may have been added as a joke. I don't think a redirect is good either. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 14:06, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted per first criterion ("...just plain gibberish"). -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:18, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Western illinois university[edit]

  • Delete, a school of any sort is not usually an article. Possible speedy candidate. -- Colin 19:21, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep and redirect to Macomb (Illinois), which I just created. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:39, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete even if redirected it's still not appropriate. Xania 20:21, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect as Andrew proposes. We've handled other universities (e.g. Baylor) this way; no reason to vary the routine for this one despite the crummy capitalization. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:38, 8 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect. --Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete this. If we need a redirect, do that with correct capitalisation. Pashley 02:18, 15 December 2006 (EST)
I suspect that the unusual capitalization is due to a MW feature (flaw?), which causes the first letter of every page to be capitalized. I know a great many people who refuse to capitalize when they're searching for things on the net and I believe the user who created the article typed in "western illinois university". Hence the abnormal capitalization, which, I feel shouldn't be an issue since a user can use all lowercase letters and still be redirected to the appropriate page. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 09:44, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Macomb (Illinois). -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:06, 23 December 2006 (EST)


Almost certainly a copyvio. Jpatokal 23:53, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted (belatedly), clear copyvio from the site Pashley gives. We should have done this one as soon as he found the link. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:19, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Carlos palma.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. An image of.... a tour guide. -- Colin 21:18, 12 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete... but can you email it to me first, that one's a classic... Cacahuate 05:23, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. --Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. --Xania 18:21, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Ryan 03:16, 27 December 2006 (EST)


Not a good image, and not appropriate to photograph any of the burnings, so encouraging it in a travel guide is counter-intelligent. Is that a word? Cacahuate 04:38, 14 December 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. Not a good image. — Ravikiran 20:13, 17 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. -- Jonboy 13:08, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:48, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Lake gardens[edit]

I can't find a place for this name. Former content was, "lake gardens of italy muppets by lee bariow its nice!!!!", which doesn't give much of a clue of what the place is supposed to be. --Evan 12:43, 14 December 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. --Evan 12:43, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. --Xania 18:22, 16 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. Muppets? -- Jonboy 13:10, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:52, 28 December 2006 (EST)


Advertisement for a web booking service. -- Jonboy 09:18, 14 December 2006 (EST)

  • Delete. --Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  • I added this page as I wanted to start a series on websites that might make your travelling easier. I did not intend it as an advertisement at all. Hraicom 06:19, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Jonboy 21:21, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Hyashi Village[edit]

All that's there is the template since May '06. Not sure what's so special about a Maui plantation village to warrant an article in Wikitravel. KeithH 04:31, 17 December 2006 (EST)

  • Keep. It may take years to finish articles on Wikitravel; we don't delete them just for that reason. A place doesn't have to be special for someone to visit it; if people visit, they want travel information. --Evan 09:14, 17 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. I like little places. I agree with Evan and I will see if I can add some information to the article. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 09:19, 17 December 2006 (EST)
Have done a little research and this is a pretty small spot from our friend in Maine. We will see, but it may not make the cut. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 09:40, 17 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. This is the kind of article that might eventually be subsumed in a "rural" article, but until then, it describes an actual place, and its obnoxious origins aren't grounds for deletion. See example at top of page. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:30, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:11, 31 December 2006 (EST)