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

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
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:

Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

===[[Chicken]]===
* 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 appears to meet 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.
  5. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel... many images are located on 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:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''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).

September 2007

New York (city)/Morningside Heights

Image:Bled slovenia.jpg

According to the description, this was taken from the Slovenia tourism website, and I find it unlikely that pro photographers who go around taking pics from helicopters would license their images as CC by-sa 1.0. Jpatokal 13:01, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Some burden of proof should be required in a case like this. --Peter Talk 16:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Unsure. The language on the original site states: "Photographs can be used free of charge for all publications, both domestic and foreign, which are used for the promotion of Slovenia as a tourist destination. We ask you to state the name of the photographer and the source with each photograph. Any usage of photographs for commercial purposes by any Slovenian publishing house is permitted only with the author's consent." I don't think this is compatible with CC-SA-1.0, because of that last little bit about Slovenian publishing houses, but could one of you legal beagles offer an opinion? It's a great pic, and it would be nice to use it if we can. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:14, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. The terms quoted above include restrictions that are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. - Todd VerBeek 16:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Images by User:Vincentwansink

Image:SkylineDusk.jpg, Image:Railtown.gif, & Image:Edmonton Queen.jpg were uploaded without licensing info and they smell copyrighty to me. --Peter Talk 01:01, 16 September 2007 (EDT)



Redmont

Can't find any place to name this page-troll-created article for. Probably would have speedy-deleted it if I had my shiny buttons. Would I be wrong? OldPine 11:10, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

How about a redirect to Redmond instead? --Peter Talk 16:25, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
It occured to me, and I don't hate the idea. OldPine 17:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and to answer your question, this was "page creation vandalism" and I don't think a speedy delete would have been wrong. But a redirect seems marginally better in this particular case. --Peter Talk 20:47, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep & redirect to Birmingham (Alabama) ~ 203.144.143.7 18:28, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • The fact that it almost means several different things, yet doesn't really mean any of them, speaks volumes. Delete. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Xel-Ha

This is actually a commercial water theme park, one of several in the area, and you can't stay there-- no accommodations. The park is only open until 5:30 or 6 PM depending on the time of year, and the article originated most likely from a park employee, with many copyright violations including copyrighted photos from the company's site and very sales-y language. A similar article was created around the same time on es: and has long since been deleted.

  • Delete - The theme park already has mentions in 4 other nearby destinations' articles.Texugo 04:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete' - Agree. Should have coverage from elsewhere. OldPine 09:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep I have been there, it is like a Mexican version of Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve near Honolulu (been there too). It is a ecological theme park. It has been a few years since I was there, but I think you can sleep there, or at least camp very near by. I would suggest to anyone in that area, especially if you have children, visit. It is on the road to Tulum, from Cancun and heavily traveled by tourists. 2old 10:32, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Their website suggests no on-site accommodations and the park is within taxi distance from both Cancun and Tulum, which to me makes it a non-article. The only commercial theme park articles we have so far are Disney resorts, which are huge theme park complexes with accommodations. I don't believe this park measures up. The activities on offer there can easily be summed up in a brief paragraph on the Cancun page. The rest of it is just commercial nonsense, i.e. "Xel-ha is a theme park created by Mayan gods, bla bla bla". Texugo 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
I thought about this last night. I agree that it is a non-article. My first thought was don't delete this. It should be merged with Mayan Riviera or Riviera Maya which both exist on Wikitravel and are the same place. And, those should be merged. So, my vote is changed to Merge and redirect if approptiate. By the way, the area was created by the Mayan Gods, it is where they vacationed. If you visit, you will understand why. 2old 09:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
That sounds right to me. Merge and redirect. Pashley 20:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Kuching international airport 01.jpg

Requires model release --NJR_ZA 08:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Guide to petra jordan.jpg and Image:Guide to petra jordan.JPG

Copyvio, [1]. Origional site does not specify license or copyright, but since it is commercial it is doubtful that they will allow anything beyond personal use on the image --NJR_ZA 08:46, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


Image:Image-Shield.png

Zaragoza city shield. Non travel related --NJR_ZA 08:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:DSC00755.JPG

Model release required --NJR_ZA 09:02, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Mauritius Port-Louis Meat Market.JPG

Model release required --NJR_ZA 09:02, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete Mainly, due to the odor it brings to mind. Secondly, due to model release. shewy. 2old 13:34, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Kanata

I'm not sure where this content belongs, actually. Should it somehow be merged into Ottawa? Or made a district? No options seem very good, but my hunch is that it shouldn't have its own article. --Peter Talk 15:21, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Unsure. You pretty much sum up my feelings on this one.
  • Keep, at least until Ottawa gets districtified, if ever. It is a moderately large (tens of thousands) town some miles outside the city itself. Pashley 16:46, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Ottawa for the time being. Wikipedia's text on Kanata is interesting: "Kanata is a large suburban area in the western part of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada." There is enough ambiguity as to the status of a place like this (and it's hardly unique among Canadian sort-of-towns) that keeping the pointer around, as a navigational aid, seems appropriate. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:05, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Images by User:Catchuec

Image:Colva 2.JPG, Image:Calangute 2.JPG, Image:Vagator.JPG, and Image:Calangute 1.JPG are all violations of our privacy policy and should be deleted. They also lack licensing info, but I presume that they were taken by the uploader. --Peter Talk 15:12, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete. While legally these photos are OK since they don't meet the legal definition for recognizability (no one is clearly identifiable), they don't meet the guideline of avoiding pictures of people. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete --NJR_ZA 17:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

October 2007

Images by User:Sonofpatter

Image:Souq.jpg and Image:Scan0013.jpg are both duplicates and privacy violations. Image:Sarajevo Turkish Center.jpg is also a privacy vio. All should be deleted. --Peter Talk 15:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete 2old 13:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Picture 011.jpg

No copyright information and not used on any articles.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 00:05, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- OldPine 19:45, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


Image:488.jpg

Was part of another "advertisement" that has already been VFD'd and deleted. There being no other reason to keep the image around, it's a clear delete, but should we follow the process or just speedy-delete the thing? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:57, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. But then I'm feeling all newly powerful and stuff. OldPine 19:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Risa2152.jpg

Very relevent for those who want to travel to Risa..!

Bad Joke Pages

Wikitravel:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Mars
Wikitravel:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Durkadurkastan
Wikitravel:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Keron
Wikitravel:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/MY HOUSE
Wikitravel:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Risa
  • Delete (also delete any redirects to these pages). None of the pages above are travel-related, and in general they were kept in order to distract people who were persistently modifying articles in negative ways. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for keeping any of these pages around any longer. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:54, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Keep. They're bad jokes by definition, they do no harm. Jpatokal
Keep Mars since it is actually decently written and moderately funny. Also, it is a real place and might be a travel destination at some point. Delete the others. Pashley 08:37, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Copyvio from the university web site, [2] and anyway,universities don't get their own articles. Pashley 08:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Brubeck

Appears not to be the name of any article-worthy location. ~ 202.79.25.170 09:49, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Local airlines in Bolivia,Amaszonas,TAM, Bolivia

None of these are articleworthy, they should be merged back into Bolivia. Jpatokal 12:24, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

  • My reply: I made the research and wrote the text, and I still find the contents relevant to Wikitravel and useful for the Wikitravel users. I agree that the text can be merged into the article Bolivia. And my original plan was to place it there.

But the article Bolivia has some problems:

1. There are two relevant paragraphs/headings: 'National Travel' and 'Air Lines in Bolivia'. And obvious the 'National Travel' only deals with travel by air.

2. In this 'National Travel' the Jodanga Hostel in Santa Cruz www.jodanga.com is mentioned. I doubt this is OK, but I didn't want to be the one who face it.

3. In the paragraph 'Air Lines in Bolivia' there is something quite wrong with the codes and layout. In addition the text itself is mysterious and improper:

"I prefer this search engine .." and "Book your first night in Bolivia at the Jodanga hostel .."

If somebody will fix these mistakes/bugs in the article Bolivia, I will gladly merge my new text into it. ~ ErikSommer 19:48, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

The points you've raised have now been addressed. ~ 202.72.96.2 05:27, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Johannesburg/South West

No longer required. Gauteng and Johannesburg is being restructured --NJR_ZA 15:50, 8 October 2007 (EDT)