The center for all Wikitravel images!

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 23:30, 7 January 2007 by Xania (talk | contribs) (Pictures from User JensANDMarian: DELETE)
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.

See also:


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. 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).

December 2006


I created this, but on Talk:Woodworth#Are the linked towns article-worthy? it's been suggested ...not sure there's a reason for this article to be here. ~ 00:28, 25 December 2006 (EST)

  • Delete until/unless the disambiguation page is eventually needed. This article was original created without any location information by, speedy deleted, and then re-created as a disambiguation page that links to two non-existent articles. Of the two towns being linked to, one has a population of 80, and the other is part of a larger city, so I'm not sure that we would create articles for either one, which leaves the question of why would we have a disambiguation page when we don't (and may never) have articles? If we're going to create an article or a redirect for every dot on the map then this disambiguation page will eventually be needed and should be kept, but if we're going to continue to use the criteria that not every map dot necessarily gets its own article then this disambiguation page is unnecessary. Talk:Woodworth has further comments. -- Ryan 02:39, 25 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. Both places exist, one is fairly large with a population over 1,000 Woodworth_Louisiana] with their own webpage and the home of Indian Creek Recreation Area (whatever that is). The other town is smaller with 80 people Woodworth_North_Dakota and was established in 1911 and is in a state where small towns and places are the rule. Both of those places deserve an article, so at some point the disambiguation will be needed, better now then after someone creates the location without disambiguation (again). As far a creating a article or redirect for every "dot" on the map, I think we need to define what a dot is and how to handle them. Of course, my first question is "If there is a dot on the map, then why?" My guess is that someone might want to know where it is at so they can visit. I realize there are people that think if a place is not a "Megagobmetroplexamusalopalus" (that's hillbilly for a big town) then there is no reason to visit, see, do and for sure if you can't find a commercial establishment to "pay" to sleep, then there is no reason to ever visit or to think anyone else would ever go there and they should be quickly deleted. I disagree. Funny thing about it is there are people in small towns that are so misinformed to think places like New York should be deleted. Now I do agree that "we" would likely not create an article for this places (the small ones), but I do think that "someone" might and for that matter should create one. Now if someone stumbles across the dab page and creates an article for one of the places, is that bad? Should it be VFD'ed? The answer in the past has been "No"! Because if someone creates an article with "good" intent about town then is should be kept! Here is my thought.... Someone types in the search "Woodworth".... "Wow, there is the link to my town!" They think; I am welcome, they want me here, my town has a link, I love my town, let me put some information in so everyone will know about it and what is good about the place where I live. If this dab is deleted, trust me.... At some point we will have a Woodworth that is created again and every time we delete it, we will be deleting the user that created it. Gee, I do wish that would work in the case of our article creation monster Lastly, thanks to all for putting up this small town guy and hillbilly from the Ozarks and with all my rants for small places, have a very good and happy New Year! -- Tom Holland (xltel) 07:49, 25 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep, at least until we get the "Rural Areas" destination type that has been discussed lately. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:13, 25 December 2006 (EST)


This is a subdivision in Gaithersburg, which is a town of <100K in Maryland, so I don't think it qualifies as a "huge city" with districts. I think the article violates the hierarchy rules.

  • Redirect/merge -- I suggest it should be redirected to Gaithersburg. See Talk:Kentlands for the discussion Tom and I have had about this. Even if it were a district, it should be Gaithersburg/Kentlands. I feel weird putting something up for a vfd, and not voting delete, but this seemed to be the best way of resolving the disagreement. -- Jonboy 17:47, 28 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect to Gaithersburg. Gaithersburg is a nice place, but it isn't exactly a huge city... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:50, 28 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect After sleeping on this one, you guys are right. I am proceeding to redirect this to Gaithersburg. That matches policy for this one. As previously argued Gaithersburg is not large enough article for districts and after thinking about it this would open a slippery slope for a lot of other locations. I am pretty sure we do not want to do that at this point. Maybe later, but a policy change on this now would likely open the gates too wide. If anyone want to argue the other way on this, please proceed, but I am good with the consensus to do a redirect. Any content is preserved on the redirect history and I do the work to merge it to Gaithersburg. Any, disagreement... do it now or this one is a speedy! -- Tom Holland (xltel) 09:51, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Image:Santorini sunset.png

Copyvio. The uploader thoughtfully provided the link that it's copyrighted on: -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:26, 28 December 2006 (EST)


Copyvio from -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 04:59, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Meadowhall Shopping Centre

  • Shopping mall, not an actual destination. Delete. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 10:58, 30 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete -- Jonboy 00:16, 31 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete Terence Ong 00:24, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Volunteer nepal

  • We could possibly turn this into an travel topic about volunteering in Nepal, but I think that would really be stretching it. Delete. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 11:15, 30 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete; speedy OK. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 30 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect to Nepal and ask the contributor to move the content to his/her user page. This is someone with a lot of excellent first-hand travel info and it would be a shame to loose it. I'll do a welcome message to explain our Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals. Maj 12:33, 31 December 2006 (EST)


  • Obvious copyvio. No copyright provided. -- Colin 19:42, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Mexico City/Miguel Santa Fe

From the page, "* Delete. Miguel Santa Fe is not a valid place name, it doesnt even exist, it was a typo. The correct name is just Santa Fe. This page has no content. The correct stub has been created and is growing. Fabz 23:32, 30 December 2006 (EST)"

  • I'm transferring this from the page itself, since it belongs here. Haven't thought about it, so Abstain. -- Jonboy 00:03, 31 December 2006 (EST)

January 2007

Image:Pioneerpark.jpg and others

Image:Pioneerpark.jpg Image:Hermitscaves.JPG Image:Yancoag.jpg Image:Hydroleeton.jpg Image:Watertowerleeton.jpg Image:Roxywmleeton.jpg Image:Roxyleeton.jpg

  • Delete. Images uploaded by contributor who has performed a significant number of cut-n-paste copyvios with text. -- Colin 02:25, 4 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. At the minimum, the Leeton images are clear copyvios from here. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:55, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Pictures from User JensANDMarian

Please delete all pictures listed below. I uploaded all these Images and I am the sole copyright holder of all pictures. I uploaded these pictures to further the development of Wikitravel. However, since the Wikitravel domain (including its content) was sold and became an commercial site itself I am not willing to grant you the use of my work. JensANDMarian

  • Keep. Please reread the license you consented to and try to understand it. The license has always allowed commercial users to copy stuff from us and publish it -- just check out the list of other sites who are already reusing it for commercial purposes. Did you know that Wikipedia allows it too? Did you know that Wikipedia has never promised you they will not add ads to their web pages in the future? Also, it is not true that the "content was sold." The copyright for each piece of work you have ever contributed still belongs to you even though you cannot change the terms. Did you know that the new hosting company for wikitravel cannot ever change the terms for your uploads? Your uploads will always be free for anyone to copy. Anyone who wants will be free to copy EVERYTHING from Wikitravel and make their own site -- they always have been allowed, and always will be. So explain this to me again. If the terms for reusing material from Wikitravel are going to remain the same as they always have been, what is so darn evil about letting a commercial company pay for hosting our website? -- Colin 17:42, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Any non-inuse images are okay with me to delete. -- Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • All photos which were meant for your user page (and contain images of people) are okay with me to delete. -- Colin 02:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • DELETE. The work was posted on WT in good faith at a time that WT was a "Wiki", but not owned by Since I am the copyright holder of the pictures I am entitled to refuse you the rigths to use these pictures, because you did not tell me the whole story about commercialising WT in first place.
  • The reasons why I decided to disallow WT the use of my pictures is the conflict of interest of a commercial entity as and a travelguide.
  • Well on the other side my contributions are minor and do you think you are doing the reputation of Wikitravel a favour by retaining work on the server when the originator does not give his consent.
  • Colin , I can't comment on the future directions of Wikipedia, but as far as I can see Wikipedia resisted the tempation of going commercial for quiet a while and they retain a lively community supporting WP with donations and free work.
  • JensANDMarian 19:07, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Good thing Wikipedia was founded by a millionaire who had already made a ton of money in the web porn business and could finance something philanthropic. Of course, he has started a business to make money off this whole Wiki thing. It's just the encyclopedia which is philanthropic. Wikitravel lacked that sort of luck. -- Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Colin: Can't comment if this is true or not, but your claim seems weird to me and it is off topic as well. I would appreciate if you could provide me with a link that Wikipedia was founded by a millionaire who had already made a ton of money in the web porn business. I have to say that your arguments are silly (unless you provide a link to a credible source). JensANDMarian 20:24, 6 January 2007 (EST)
      • See WikiPedia:Jimmy Wales. You are correct that the nature of his finances is offtopic. The only on-topic part is that he could afford to finance it. -- Colin 20:47, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. This seems like an issue of courtesy, rather than legality, since legally it's clear that these images are being used in accordance with the CC-SA license that they were released under. While legally the images can be used here, I think it sets a bad precedent if a user who contributed content and then later asks that the content be removed is not allowed to do so - people add content here in good faith, and I think we should respect requests to remove that content if desired. However, JensANDMarian needs to understand that he has licensed his images under the CC-SA, they have been made available on the web, and if they appear elsewhere, even on a commercial site, he no longer has the legal right to retroactively change the licensing. -- Ryan 19:20, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • What of the mirrors and the fork? Is he going to eliminate the images from them too? If he doesn't, then we can just copy his stuff right back from the Mirrors (or someone might). I really don't want to set this kind of precedent. I'm okay with deleting any images not in use. I'm okay with someone who misunderstands and changes their mind shortly after uploading. But years later? At the very least, if we're going to delete them then I want a commitment from JensANDMarian that he is going to ask each and every Mirror to remove them. -- Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Colin thank you very much for very thougtful comments. I will try to eliminate pictures that have been uploaded by other sides and I hope you (Colin) and Evan will assist me in doing so. Re-loading of images from other sites that have been deleted on WT is very naughty, because you have been told off and your are not entitled to use them anymore.

Thank you very much for your future co-operation. JensANDMarian 20:44, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Check out Wikitravel:Mirrors which lists the mirrors we are aware of. Since your username is pretty unique, Googling for "JensANDMarian" results in nearly a thousand hits most of which are presumably related to your contributions (the number of sites will be less, of course) and may give you an idea of the scope of what you are asking. Also checkout our beloved fork, WikiVoyage which has also copied your stuff. Lastly, we are not in the habit of verifying the lack of naughtiness of our users, so it's entirely conceivable that some innocent user will find your images on a different site, note that the license is appropriate for copying back to Wikitravel, and will copy it. -- Colin 20:54, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Just to add another comment here, I'm in favor of deleting Jen's images that are currently on Wikitravel, but I'm COMPLETELY opposed to policing Wikitravel, the mirrors, or anywhere else to make sure these images aren't re-uploaded: Jens, you released them under the CC-SA, and they are on the web and available for anyone to use them under that license. In the future, if someone re-uploads one of your images here after grabbing it from another site, that's definitely not "naughty", that's legal under the terms of the license that YOU agreed to. Second, I don't expect Colin, Evan or anyone else to assist in deleting these images from anywhere other than Wikitravel - assuming other sites are providing attribution, they are using the images legally. Jens, again, if you want them deleted it's up to you to track down the images, and it's also up to you to convince site owners to delete content that they are legally using. -- Ryan 21:02, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Agree completely with Ryan. Deleting an image when requested by the person who uploaded the image is common courtesy, and we do it all the time, although usually for other reasons. But re-use of images elsewhere is explicitly allowed under CC-SA, and the genie is out of the bottle. Not only is it not our problem, it is by definition not a problem. Meanwhile, JensANDMarian, I hope that you'll take Evan up on his call for dialogue below. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:07, 6 January 2007 (EST)
I notice the images are also in use on de:. Whose job is it to tell the German Wikitravellers? -- Colin 21:12, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Abstain. JensANDMarian, under the license you used when you released the work, everybody -- including Wikitravel -- is allowed to use your work forever. Once you have given that permission, it cannot be revoked (per section 7b, Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work).) That all said, if you're really sure that you want them removed, I think everyone would rather remove them than have a big problem with a longtime member of the community like you. Your contributions have been much appreciated and I'd be sad to see your very nice photographs go. However, I'd prefer that we actually talked about the issues that seem to have you upset, rather than taking this step. You've done a good thing sharing your work with the world, and I'd hate for that generous gesture to go to waste. Please talk to me on my talk page, User talk:Evan, if you have some questions, comments, or issues you'd like to discuss. --Evan 21:45, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. VfD is not the right way to go about this: the images are fully CC-by-sa compliant. Jpatokal 23:59, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. As others have said, the license does not allow for the retraction of rights. With the exception of Image:DSC01650.jpg, which seems to violate Wikitravel:Image_policy#People_in_photos. For that, I vote Delete. -- Jonboy 02:19, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • He seems to mean all his pictures, which can be found through this link. JensANDMarian, can you please check that link and clarify if you mean to nominate all the other ones too? A number of his images were meant for his user page. -- Colin 02:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete, but keep if somebody copies them back in from one of the mirrors, especially if they come from Wikivoyage. I'm seriously confused as to why people who are unable to see that having IB own the right to host the site has changed exactly nothing, however it harms us not the least to comply with this request. Meanwhile the funny thing is that Lonely Planet and Microsoft still have Jens' and Maria's express permission to use the images, but not us. -- Mark 03:13, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • I'm abstaining from this vote, for now, but I have a question for everyone that's voting delete out of courtesy. Hypothetically, if I get all pissed off at you guys (especially Mr. Prodromou - I might as well join the bandwagon) for not telling me the domain and servers are owned by IB, or because IB starts advertising with the annoying blinking ads saying I was the 10,000,000th million visitor and won some non-existent Playstation 3, and I demand all the photos I own the copyright to be removed from the WT sites do you extend the courtesy? What if I demand that you delete every single contribution I made? I'm worried that we're becoming a little too courteous. In the past couple of months we've become increasingly accommodating, so much so I can't tell where we draw the lines between being reasonable and trying to protect people from their inability to read the By clicking "Save" below, you acknowledge that you agree to the site license as well as the following: line. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:54, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Here's my opinion, others probably feel differently. There seem to be a lot of jobs that come up around here where some people say "I don't want to do it, but if someone else is willing to do it then I don't care if they do" (Special:Contributions/ comes to mind...), and generally someone else is willing to do the job. In this case I don't mind tracking down Jens' images and deleting them from the site, and since he's asked us to do so it seems like the courteous thing to do. If 10 people a week were asking us to remove their images, or if someone who had contributed hundreds of images was doing so, my willingness to accommodate them would be considerably less, especially since we have numerous notices about the site's licensing. However, I also think that if we had 10 people a week asking for their contributions to be removed then we'd be talking about how to make people better understand the license, rather than whether to extend a courtesy to someone who should have read the license but didn't. -- Ryan 04:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Question for JensANDMarian: it appears that you are working on WikiVoyage, which is no doubt a fine project. But if you are uploading images there, then you are once again giving us rights to your images (you have read the license by now, right?). So do you plan on asking WikiVoyage to remove your images? -- Colin 15:17, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete This is courtest as someone has already said. Many people supported Wikitravel because it was part of a non-profit company. Now it's not and lots of people, especially outside of the USA, have a BIG problem with this. We see information as being a resource which has no price and shouldn't be used for commercial gain. I'm sure that technically, if we wanted to be bastards, we could just grab the pictures again from another website but that would just be stupid. Xania 18:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Brazilian community in florida

  • This is a little too fined grained and seems to be somewhat outside of Wikitravel's scope. Delete. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:02, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Wikipedia, maybe... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)