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

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 23:42, 12 December 2006 by Xania (talk | contribs) (December 2006)
Jump to: navigation, search

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 Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.


The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the 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 talk page.
  2. If the article or image meets the deletion criteria, do any preparatory work (like orphaning an image, or combining the article with one it duplicates) prior to listing it here.
  3. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
  4. 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 ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.


All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* Keep.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. 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 you feel that way. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

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 copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

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 repository with the same name, do not remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the shared repository.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The 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).

November 2006


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)

Paper travel guides

  • 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)

LAN Airlines

  • 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)


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)
  • 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)

December 2006

Salt Cathedral

  • 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)

Bed & Breakfast BC

  • 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)


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)


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, 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)

Western illinois university

  • 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)

Image:KY Oaks Mall RWC Job.jpg

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


Page created by a newbie. This doesn't need discussion so could someone tell me if there's a tag we can use for things that are definately speedy deletes? Xania 18:38, 12 December 2006 (EST)