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

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/December 2009

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive for Wikitravel:Votes for deletion acted on in December 2009. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/November 2009 or Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/January 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.


nonsence --Rein N. 08:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)

  • Speedy. First admin to see it will delete I am sure. --Burmesedays 09:14, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Or redirect to Banana Island? --Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:30, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Or indeed the city in Dem Rep of Congo, it is redlinked here. :) --Burmesedays 09:34, 1 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to Banana, perhaps - this is starting to sound like a disambiguation page. There is also a Banana territory mentioned in Caribbean Costa Rica, though the article hasn't been created ... yet. I don't think deleting it is a solution, as Bannana is a mispelling of Banana that appears in several (I count 4) Wikitravel articles! - Huttite 05:40, 2 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. No question. Pashley 11:45, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. If no one has yet thought to create the page that we could consider redirecting it to, then any redirection is useless. --inas 17:57, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • The current page makes WT look silly. The Bannana page was clearly set up as a joke and here we are spending time and effort trying to justify it. --Burmesedays 21:30, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Banana created as disambiguation page, this redirected there. Pashley 17:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Whilst I am delighted to see this discussion archived, we have effectively redirected a spelling mistake. I hope that does not create a precedent. --Burmesedays 22:09, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Justin bieber[edit]

  • Speedy Deletion - Person's name - Huttite 06:23, 2 December 2009 (EST)


It's a road running through multiple districts, making a redirect not useful. Streets do not get their own articles right? Globe-trotter 20:13, 2 December 2009 (EST)

But the street name does defines a district, so I would think it is a common search term for shopping strip part of Oxford Street. A redirect to London/West End might set people on the right track? --inas 20:49, 2 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to London/West End London/Mayfair-Marylebone. Oxford Street is unquestionably a search term that will be used and much of it is in this district.--Burmesedays 21:09, 2 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect Pashley 11:48, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to London. London/West End will not be part of the new districts scheme. --Peter Talk 21:19, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • If it is a likely search term, then wouldn't it be better to create a redirect for Oxford Street or London Oxford Street/Oxford Street London and then delete this? I don't know anyone who searches using the "/". If this is another one of those instances where it is not deleted in order to preserve credit then I suppose it can be redirected. ChubbyWimbus 00:37, 4 December 2009 (EST)
A search for Oxford Street in our box will still return London/Oxford Street. More importantly, the policy (Wikitravel:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting) is to redirect (and that policy exists largely to save us time). --Peter Talk 03:14, 4 December 2009 (EST)
And certainly a more likely search term for the district than the district name itself. --inas 17:45, 6 December 2009 (EST)

What about London/Bond Street? That seems to have been deleted, but I'd say it should also be a redirect since it is a likely search term. I don't know london well enough to be sure where to redirect it. Pashley 20:54, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Probably a valid re-direct I agree. It should re-direct to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. --Burmesedays 21:25, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Did that. Pashley 01:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)[edit]

  • Speedy deleted - Advertising spam. - Huttite 06:08, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Niseko gourmet[edit]

Not an article but a catering company.--Burmesedays 06:07, 4 December 2009 (EST)

  • Speedy deleted as listed. - Advertising spam that was same as - Huttite 06:15, 4 December 2009 (EST)


Had no real content --Rein N. 08:45, 11 December 2009 (EST)

  • Speedy deletion. Done by myself jan 09:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Dallam County[edit]

Texas has well over 300 counties, many of them with only a couple of tiny towns, and so counties are not an organizational structure that we use for the state. This county article, in particular, is unlikely to ever contain anything more than Dalhart, and there really isn't anything else to mention there.

  • Redirect to High Plains. Texugo 08:28, 12 December 2009 (EST)
  • Keep as the destination can be a regional article for Dalhart. If it is only going to contain Dalhart, the redirect it there, not to High Plains. Also, the discussion on whether we should have US counties as articles, is only a discussion, it does not appear to have been turned into policy. - Huttite 18:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)
  • 'Redirect to High Plains. No point at all having a region article with one city in it and disrupting what looks like a sensible existing regional structure for this state. --Burmesedays 21:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect. Actually, I redirected it before I saw this discussion. I referenced that discussion, since the consensus resulting (as I understand it) is practical: when U.S. counties make for sensible regions (like the ones with strong individual identities in the very dense population center of Capital Region (Maryland)), then it's fine to give them their own articles. When it's some tiny western county, arbitrarily drawn as a square, denoting a section of flat nothingness with a population of 6,000 (basically all of whom live in the tiny town of Dalhart), then it's not. Of the two other towns added to that article, one is a ghost town, and the other has a whopping 500 residents—neither pass the wiaa criteria. I think the standard practice is to redirect unneeded/non-article subregions to the parent region, but I'm fine with redirecting to Dalhart instead, if people think it worthwhile. --Peter Talk 21:44, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Travel topics/‎[edit]

Spam, please speedy deletion - --Rein N. 07:41, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Done. This is at least the third time a spammer has hit that page name. Should we create an empty page there and protect it? Pashley 08:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)
There are a few similar targets, and we'll be chasing our tails creating and protecting these articles for every spambot. Easy enough to delete. --inas 18:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Pages that are repeatedly recreated by spambots are specifically called out in Wikitravel:Protected page policy as pages to create (as a redirect) with permanent protection. In the past we have had a few pages that get re-created on a near-daily basis until a protected redirect is created. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)
To me, hammering away has an implication that it is being done in an automated fashion too quickly for us to practically revert - the same basis that we would protect any other page from a bot. The volume here clearly doesn't qualify it for this ugly hack. --inas 20:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Spammers will go to anther page so easy and fast. Put pages like this in your watch list and delete by hand. --Rein N. 07:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Diamond travels[edit]

  • Speedy deletion - Business listing. - Huttite 10:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)
    • Deleted - Huttite 10:12, 29 December 2009 (EST)

The River Tuul Nomad's Sacred Valley[edit]

The whole page is a copyvio and marked as such and it could well be treated as an attraction with a camp, rather than a destination. As it is only 25 miles from Ulaan Baatar I suggest emptying the page, redirecting to Ulaan Baatar and putting a description of the attraction in that article. The copyvio text also made it to the Mongolia page and I have deleted it there. --Burmesedays 04:54, 29 November 2009 (EST)

On closer inspection, the useful information is already in Ulaanbaatar. So emptied and redirected. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:06, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Yokohama city kanazawa ward[edit]

Obviously a district of Yokohama, but as that city is not districtified, I moved all the content to Yokohama and think this one can be deleted. Globe-trotter 16:08, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Delete (far too awkwardly titled to be a useful redirect), and thanks for doing the merge work. - D. Guillaime 18:12, 21 December 2009 (EST)
So did we decide that attribution is unnecessary when it comes to merges, or that some other mechanism of attribution is more important? LtPowers 19:38, 21 December 2009 (EST)
Delete I hate to sound mean, but these Japanese pages are obnoxious! ChubbyWimbus 02:20, 22 December 2009 (EST)
  • Seems like policy is clear, so I made it redirect to Yokohama. Globe-trotter 20:25, 23 December 2009 (EST)