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

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Easington Lane-'''Speedy delete''' Not a valid travel article topic)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- generates a "+"-Tab so we can easyly add a new topic -->
 
  
This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. '''Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent.''' After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion#Nominating|Nominating]] and [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion#Commenting|Commenting]] sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.
 
 
See also:
 
* [[Special:Log/delete|Deletion log]]
 
* [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/Archives|Votes for deletion/Archives]] - the VFD archives index page
 
* [[Wikitravel:Votes for undeletion|Votes for undeletion]]
 
* [[:Shared:Votes for deletion]]
 
 
==Nominating==
 
 
The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:
 
 
<nowiki>===[[Chicken]]===</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~</nowiki>
 
 
Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:
 
 
# First read the [[Wikitravel:Deletion policy|deletion policy]] and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion. If you are unsure, bring up the issue on the [[Wikitravel:using talk pages|talk page]].
 
# For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a <nowiki>{{vfd}}</nowiki> tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The <nowiki>{{vfd}}</nowiki> tag must be the very first thing in the article, '''right at the very top''', before everything else.
 
# Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion.  Sign your vote using four tildes ("<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>").  ''List one article or image per entry''.
 
# If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel... many images are located on [[:shared:Wikitravel shared:Votes for deletion|Wikitravel Shared]], in which case they should be nominated for deletion over there instead.
 
 
==Commenting==
 
 
All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion.  The format for comments is:
 
 
<nowiki>===[[Chicken]]===</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~</nowiki>
 
 
When leaving comments:
 
 
# First read the [[Wikitravel:Deletion policy|deletion policy]] and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
 
# You may vote to '''delete''', '''keep''', or '''redirect''' the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why.  If you are in favor of redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Sign your vote using four tildes ("<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>").
 
 
==Deleting, or not==
 
 
After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to '''keep''', '''redirect''' or '''merge''', then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.
 
 
If the result is '''delete''', then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article. However, if the image is being deleted because it has been moved to the [[:Shared:Main Page|shared repository]] with the same name, '''do not''' remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the shared repository.
 
 
==Archiving==
 
 
After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, '''move the deletion discussion'''  to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The [[Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/Archives |root Archives page]] has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the ''action'' was taken, rather than when the ''nomination'' was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).
 
 
If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.
 
 
{{WikitravelDoc|collaboration}}
 
 
<!-- Interlanguage links here so new nominations can be added at the bottom -->
 
 
[[ca:Wikitravel:Esborrat d'articles]]
 
[[de:Wikitravel:Bitte löschen]]
 
[[es:Wikitravel:Borrado de artículos]]
 
[[fr:Wikitravel:Pages à supprimer]]
 
[[it:Wikitravel:Pagine da cancellare]]
 
[[ja:Wikitravel:削除依頼]]
 
[[ko:Wikitravel:삭제 투표]]
 
[[nl:Wikitravel:Stemmen voor verwijdering]]
 
[[pl:Wikitravel:Do usunięcia]]
 
[[pt:Wikitravel:Votos para eliminação]]
 
[[ru:Wikitravel:Запросы на удаление]]
 
[[sv:Wikitravel:Artiklar som bör raderas]]
 
[[zh:Wikitravel:刪除投票和請求]]
 
[[wts:Votes for deletion]]
 
 
<!-- Deletion discussions start here -->
 
 
==December 2010==
 
 
===[[Los Palos]]===
 
 
Speedily delete. Nonsense. {{unsigned|Roundtheworld}}
 
 
*'''Keep'''. I deleted the nonsense and moved it to [[Lospalos]], which is the correct name of the East Timor town (it is often misspelled as Los Palos).  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 10:31, 29 December 2010 (EST)
 
 
== January 2011 ==
 
 
=== [[:Image:1.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image, and it is an advertisement for a hotel, something we typically discourage. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:0941a.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  This is an orphaned image that is a duplicate (albeit in a smaller size) of [[:Image:0941.jpg]]. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 0238.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image of what appears to be a breakwall.  It's poor quality, and without some indication of where it was taken I fail to see how it could ever be incorporated into an article. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 1064.JPG]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image, and it's of such poor quality that I don't know what it's supposed to be showing.  In addition, the caption indicates it was uploaded to promote a hotel, something we typically discourage. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 0876.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image, and it is an advertisement for a hotel, something we typically discourage.  The same user also uploaded [[:Image:100 1759.jpg]] and [[:Image:100 1734.jpg]]. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 1734.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image, and it is an advertisement for a hotel, something we typically discourage.  The same user also uploaded [[:Image:100 0876.jpg]] and [[:Image:100 1759.jpg]]. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 1759.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image, and it is an advertisement for a hotel, something we typically discourage.  The same user also uploaded [[:Image:100 0876.jpg]] and [[:Image:100 1734.jpg]]. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== Images from [[Special:Contributions/Espace_dali]] ===
 
 
* [[:Image:100 1103.JPG]]
 
* [[:Image:Musée ESPACE DALI St goeorges 3.jpg]]
 
* [[:Image:Musée ESPACE DALI licorne 3 ED.jpg]]
 
* [[:Image:Musée ESPACE DALI interieur ED.jpg]]
 
* [[:Image:Plan ESPACE DALI ED.jpg]]
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  These are all orphaned thumbnail images that appear to be copyvios from http://www.daliparis.com/pratique-espace-dali.html. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 1489.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image, and it is an advertisement for a cottage rental, something we typically discourage. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 1896.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image of recognizable people with no model release provided. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:100 MG 8026-2b.jpg]] & [[:Image:MG 8026-2b.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  These are duplicate orphaned images, uploaded (apparently) to promote a business, something we typically discourage. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:124 2401.JPG]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image, and it is an advertisement for a B&B, something we typically discourage. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:125.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image that was uploaded to promote a specific hotel in [[Barbados]], something we typically discourage. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:13951395.jpg]] & [[:Image:The Prince on Koh Samet.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  These are duplicate orphaned images of a drawn figure.  There is no indication that they are original works or that they can be re-licensed CC-SA, so are suspect as copyvio. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:149152 1598379452399 1623405175 1395043 4376251 n.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:16 Mai House .jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image that is a duplicate of [[:Image:Mai House.jpg]]. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:21Skyline.jpg.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image that is a duplicate of [[:Image:21Skyline.jpg]]. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:19, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:22032008571.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:19, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:243.JPG]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image of a detailed view of a bike frame.  No relevance to travel. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:19, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:25.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned thumbnail promoting a specific hotel, something we typically discourage. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:19, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:269516pic1.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:19, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:272177727 c678819f7b.jpg]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  Orphaned image of a tree.  Unless someone sees a reason to incorporate this into an article, policy dictates that it should be deleted. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:19, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
===[[Paradiso]]===
 
Article about the somewhat famous music venue in Amsterdam, directly copied from [[:Wikipedia:Paradiso (Amsterdam)]]. There are other geographic uses of the term (see [[:Wikipedia:Paradiso]]) so simply redirecting to the city district where the venue is located ([[Amsterdam/Canal Ring]]) might not be the best idea. Delete? [[User:Eco84|Eco84]] 23:16, 1 January 2011 (EST)
 
* '''Delete''' - I'm sure thousands of restaurants, clubs, venues, and hotels across the Spanish speaking world have this as at least part of their name. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 04:33, 2 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
 
===[[:Image:Route 58 into Emerald Isle.jpg]]===
 
The image features an identifiable person and it really isn't appealing as a from-the-highway shot. [[User:ChubbyWimbus|ChubbyWimbus]] 15:24, 8 January 2011 (EST)
 
* '''Delete''' - Agreed. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 19:46, 8 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[Template:Weather box]] ===
 
 
* '''Delete'''.  This template is currently broken, and the purpose for which it appears to have been created is already fulfilled by [[Template:Climate]]. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 22:50, 8 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[:Image:A4A.jpg]] ===
 
* '''Delete'''.  Pure advertising.  – [[User:Dguillaime|D. Guillaime]] 17:48, 9 January 2011 (EST)
 
* '''Delete'''. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 18:37, 9 January 2011 (EST)
 
* '''Delete'''. Absurd and quite blatant advertising material [[User:Felix505|felix]] 14:41, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
* '''Speedy deleted''' - [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 16:32, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
===[[Acela Express]]===
 
 
This is not an itinerary. More an advert. [[User:Roundtheworld|Shep]] 13:30, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
* '''Keep''' (for now).  While the preference is articles on specific subjects like the Acela Express start out as sub-sections of broader articles like [[Rail travel in the United States]], we do allow articles on individual trains such as [[Palace on Wheels]] and [[Trans-Siberian Railway]], and the [[Wikitravel:Deletion policy|current policy]] is that there is a one-year incubation period for such articles to develop. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 13:36, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
* '''Delete''' or '''Merge''' into [[Rail travel in the United States]].  It isn't an itinerary, it is just a train. This is a real slippery slope for articles on transportation. --[[User:Inas|inas]] 18:56, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
* '''Keep''' (for now). Although it is just a ''train route'' is does seem to present scope for further ''Amtrak'' system (Itinerary) development. I understand it is the nations second ranked ''Amtrak'' journey. Perhaps if the current ''Acela Express'' lingers for a while it will afford the opportunity for ''sister'' (Itinerary) articles to emerge that may detail some of the other ''Amtrak'' routes. I note that one such ''sister article'' already exists. [[Empire Builder]] (Itinerary) appears to complement this ''Acela Express'' article. If the sort of detail currently presented in ''Acela Express'' were to be merged into the current ''travel topic'' article [[Rail travel in the United States]] then it may become a little bloated if subsequently complemented by detail on other significant Amtrak routes. The current  bulk of detail on ''Acela Express'' could also be somewhat overbearing within the current ''Amtrak'' content in the ''Rail travel in the United States'' article. I guess the issue is one of considering if the route is significant and the information within is of benefit to the traveller. However [[User:Inas|inas]] is quite correct to voice caution, we do not want to see articles emerging on local bus services and commuter trips. ''Amtrak'' is a State icon and the nations trunk passenger operator. Hopefully that delineates sufficient ''icon'' and ''significance'' status. [[User:Felix505|felix]] 22:30, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
: There is nothing iconic or particularly significant about this trip.  It is a standard, albeit popular, train running between major east coast cities.  Its isn't a tourist train.  It isn't one of America's great train journeys. It just a utilitarian form of transport running between East Coast cities..  If we allow a separate article for this train, I can't see any remaining criteria to exclude any inter-city train route. This really is a train that you just turn up at the station and catch to get to where you are going.  It's probably even better just moved to the ''Get in'' sections of the relevant destinations.  It is not an itinerary, as you would only take the train if it was where you were going in the first place.  The other examples given above are actually trains that you may go out of your way to catch, because they are journeys in themselves.  This one isn't.  --[[User:Inas|inas]] 22:56, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
:: While I don't necessarily disagree with you, there doesn't seem to be any clear policy to support a deletion, and since we already have articles about trains there is a precedent set for keeping this article.  Similar issues were raised concerning cruise ships and not resolved.  I'd suggest trying to clarify a policy on such articles at [[Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy]], but until then I'm not sure that there is a precedent to delete this particular article. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 23:20, 10 January 2011 (EST)
 
::: The policy I am relying on, is that that ''it is too fine grained''.  We don't create articles for each individual attraction,  each individual bus company, or each individual train that services a destination, we incorporate them into destination guides (or sometimes travel topics/itineraries).  We have some (legitimate) exceptions for some train journeys that constitute destinations in themselves.  However, I don't see those in anyway setting a precedent for an article on what is very nearly a commuter train.  There are several train "brands" that run the route between D.C. and NY.  The information from this article could be contained in 1-2 lines of prose in those articles.  --[[User:Inas|inas]] 00:03, 11 January 2011 (EST)
 
::::I'm going to go with [[User:Inas|Inas]] on this one. This is a very short ride used mostly by business travellers, and the article consists of only a list of stops plus information about amenities that is essentially the same for all Amtrak lines, duplicated from the US rail travel article. Even if we give it a year, I cannot imagine what useful stuff could possibly be added. This is not an itinerary-- if someone created a crazy shotgun itinerary like [[The Eastern Seaboard in a Day]] that utilized this line, fine, but the line by itself will never be suited to an itinerary and thus shouldn't be an article.
 
::::The currently unagreed-upon policy indicates that this type of thing should start in the parent topic (Rail travel in the US) and be split out if necessary (which is subjective). The splitting out here hasn't really added any information that couldn't be handled with a routebox, rendering the article redundant. Anyway, even if you say the deletion policy is a bit unclear, I'd say that in spite of that-- or perhaps because of it-- if we can agree here to delete it then we should. Just because there are a very few existing articles for ''tourist trains'', mostly famous ones that take several days to traverse, does not to me imply a precedent that we must keep for a whole year any and every train article that pops up. On the contrary, not even allowing a discussion to delete this kind of stuff sets the opposite precedent in that if this utilitarian 3 1/2 hour train line is given a years' chance to become something besides a glorified list, I could easily create a couple hundred such articles for high speed lines here in Japan and we'd have to sit on those for a year too. Waiting for consensus on the policy is already taking a long time-- postponing all related vfds until such time is unnecessary. Is anybody claiming we should keep this on its own merits rather than just because policy is unclear? Let's just focus on this article-- does it actually seem like it has potential to ever develop into an itinerary on its own? I say absolutely not. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 00:10, 11 January 2011 (EST)
 
:::::In that case, [[Blue Water Service]] and [[Wolverine Service]] should be deleted as well (both are shorter than Acela Express). [[User:Sumone10154|Sumone10154]] 20:41, 12 January 2011 (EST)
 
*'''Keep''', for now anyway. I agree with Ryan that there is no clear deletion rationale (especially in light of the existence of several other long-standing articles following the same format), and that we should resolve this question off the vfd page. I suggest we take the discussion to [[Talk:Rail travel in the United States]].  --Peter 22:27, 12 January 2011 (EST)
 
: I think the rational is perfectly clear...
 
: Please see [[Wikitravel:What is an article]].  We do not create articles about transport systems or stations.  This is clearly an article about a transport system.
 
: Although we have a few train articles, this one is such that if we let it pass, we are accepting that Wikitravel now accepts articles about transport systems without having to pass any threshold or exception criteria.  This is a change to WIAA, and that argument should be taken up there.
 
: I'm not saying this would necessarily a bad thing, but we should consider it there, rather than creating a new class of articles about transport systems under a pretence they are really itineraries.  --[[User:Inas|inas]] 22:50, 12 January 2011 (EST)
 
::I think I effectively agree with you, except for what process would be ideal to resolve the question. Vfds can be a contentious way of resolving disputes, and especially in the case of deciding what to do with a new page created by an excellent new contributor (and given that it was quite reasonably created in the model of other existing articles), I think it would be wise to discuss how to present this content on a different page.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 23:28, 12 January 2011 (EST)
 
::: Although in theory that may be the case, policy discussions can bog down, and articles can easily stray when discussion is localised to discussion pages of limited interest.  VFD gives an urgency to the discussion, and in the past has done a better job of forcing a community consensus of the interpretation of our current policy in a way than pages like [[Talk:Rail travel in the United States]]. 
 
::: This vfd seems to be heading towards an odd conclusion.  No one really seems to be in strong support of the article concept, however, we seem unable to delete it because we can't interpret our own policy to do so.  --[[User:Inas|inas]] 00:25, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 
::::Precisely—because we lack a clear deletion rationale. I know you argue that there is one, but the fact that others disagree would imply that it's not terribly clear. In such cases, we should table the vfd and start a discussion. We're all reasonable people here (save the Mandarmani phone number changers), so we should be able to work out how to best present this type of content via the standard practice of discussion and consensus, in the grand wiki tradition. If we can't, then we deserve to get bogged down. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 00:43, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 
:::::I would, of course, like to see the policy sealed up to avoid this kind of article creation, but I would still contend that a consensus to delete in any individual case should still take precedence over any overarching guidelines we might have, so I don't think it's good to shelve the vfd, because, as with the bodies of water discussion, it may take months or years, and letting this kind of thing pile up in the meantime seems to eventually lend more credence to the case of those who argue to keep them. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 01:29, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 
:::::: And, I really would like to understand what is unclear about a rational based on deleting a ''transport system'' article, when we have a clear policy that we don't have articles on ''transport systems''.  So far the only disagreement I have seen that there is a no clear deletion rational is simply stating that as a fact.  In any event, we shouldn't be afraid to give a meaning to our own policies.  If the meaning we decide is that this kind of article is permitted, then all well and good.  Words will always require interpretation.  We wouldn't need this process at all if the policy was always definitive and clear.  --[[User:Inas|inas]] 20:13, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 
:::::::Because we do allow itinerary articles for train routes, such as the ones linked above.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:34, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 
:::::::: But have they been tested against policy in the vfd process?  If not, then we have not make a decision to "allow" them.  There are comments on the articles themselves, questioning the need for them.  This one is being tested against policy, and we should interpret the policy, and decide if the article complies.  If other similar articles have been selected for vfd, then similar reasoning may apply here.  But we can't just shelve this vfd because noone has been bothered to nominate other similar articles, and the existence of the other articles doesn't make the policy any less clear.  --[[User:Inas|inas]] 23:13, 13 January 2011 (EST)
 
:::::::::&rarr; [[Talk:Palace on Wheels]]  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 00:37, 14 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
=== [[Crimean war]] ===
 
 
'''Speedy delete''' Not a valid travel article topic. An adolescent rant. Content removed, now an empty article. [[User:Felix505|felix]] 09:23, 14 January 2011 (EST)
 
 
===[[Easington Lane]]===
 
 
'''Speedy delete''' Not a valid travel article topic. An adolescent construct. Content removed, now an empty article. [[User:Felix505|felix]] 09:35, 14 January 2011 (EST)
 

Revision as of 14:41, 14 January 2011