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

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 09:49, 14 October 2008 by Tatata7 (talk | contribs) (October 2008: + Bangkok/
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. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.


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 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 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, move 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).

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.

July 2008

Medical Tourism in Thailand

  • Delete. For the reasons given above for Medical tourism, and because it is unnecessarily specific to Thailand. Oh, and it's a tout piece, but that could be fixed. -- Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

These articles provide information as to guide travellers looking for destinations and their specialization in order to help travellers choose the country to visit for specific purpose. And medical tourism, golf, spas, diving are very popular ones that people specially travel for now-a-days to enjoy such activities. So i think these are few of the most important articles that people would consider before travelling as wikitravel is the website which guides travellers for travelling at different destinations with any reason of traveller's choice. Wikitravel aims to be a guide, isn't it so? So i strongly disagree to let them be deleted. --Borndistinction 04:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep The article has some good references to medical associations and clinics. The text is indeed a little too positive, almost as if it were copied from a brochure. However this can be improved and more balanced information introduced rather than deleting. And yes, lots of people do go to travel abroad for medical reasons -- it is a very legitimate travel topic. SONORAMA 11:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – cacahuate talk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep As mentioned above, how justifiable would it be to have articles on other reasons to travel in specific countries such as Golf in Australia, but not one on Medical in Thailand. In fact, Med in Thailand is huge in comparison to say Golf in China and the stats in the article prove it. Thai-blogs
  • Keep I agree with User:Borndistinction as of course wikitravel aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.
  • Keep. It is a travel related article whose concept does match today’s requirements. People nowadays look more for this type of articles because they need a variety of information when they research. As wikitravel is a very popular travel guide getting the best travel website award by WEBBY AWARDS for the year 2007 [[1]], people may consider this web too. So I agree for keeping this article. Barracuda 12:51, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Not sure. If it can be merged into the more general Medical tourism article (which should be kept!), then I'd say it should be. I do not know how practical that is, though. If it is not, then keep. Pashley 19:09, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge into Medical tourism and Thailand. There's some good information here which it would be a shame to lose, and as I commented above, I agree that Medical tourism is a valid topic.Tarr3n 08:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • If there's anything worthwhile merging, merge as above, else delete. JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. I would prefer to see this in User:Borndistinction's userspace until we figure out how to deal with Medical Tourism. Moreover, as others have said, there are significant touting problems and haphazard formatting preventing this article from appearing legit. And of course, if content can be incorporated into the article above, do that. --Peter Talk 01:18, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Retirement in Thailand

Deciding where to spend your non-travelling retirement is not a travel topic.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Unsure. If we're going to do an article on retirement (and I'm not sure if that's within the scope of Wikitravel) then it should be a general article topic, and not specific to Thailand. Additionally, this article duplicates a significant amount of information from the Thailand article that isn't retirement-specific (currency, weather, etc). At a minimum it should be cleaned-up to be retirement-specific, and if the subject is deemed to be outside of Wikitravel's scope then it should be removed. Let's give it some time and see what happens. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Even though its not a 100% travel topic but it still includes and relate to travelling to other country for specific purpose which is itself considered as a travel topic.

Well whichever country a person would like to live after retirement is his/her choice. But while choosing a country, he/she needs to consider different information, facts and destinations of the country. So well, one of the seventh most famous destination of the world for retirement is Nongkhai, Thailand, which is of course not same as other countries. So, giving information about Retirement in Thailand is providing all the information a person would need to know while choosing Thailand or while travelling to Thailand.

Whereas some facts about the country (currency, weather, etc.) i agree to keep it on Thailand page rather than putting in this article. --Borndistinction 05:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Retirement is not travel. LtPowers 11:40, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Let me expound a bit. Yes, retirement is a reason for travel. However, we don't usually include separate articles on various reasons for traveling. As a travel guide, we are largely neutral on the subject of why someone is traveling. To make matters worse, the entire second half of the article in question is not specific to retirement at all. Every bit of that information is either redundant to the Thailand article, or should be merged there. LtPowers 13:43, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Absolutely, retirement abroad doesn't concern travel. Well, agreed. By the way, were you guys former comical-contestants on American Idol? Thai-blogs
    • The point, my friend, is that the travel one takes while retired is essentially no different from the travel one takes at other times in one's life -- thus our standard travel guides work just fine for retired people. LtPowers 19:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm not sure this article should be kept. However, a general article on Retiring abroad would be valid for much the same reasons that Working abroad and Teaching English are. Thailand would get a prominent place in any such article. Pashley 18:30, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not travel relevant – cacahuate talk 21:51, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Why on Earth would you consider it "Not travel relevant"? Retiring abroad is one way to travel, and a major reason to retire abroad — whether Thailand or Costa Rica or wherever — is to use it as a base for further travel. This is not outside our scope. Wikitravel is a travel guide, not just a tourist guide. Articles like War zone safety or Teaching English are valuable. This may have the wrong scope — perhaps we just need a general Retiring abroad article — and may need other work. but I'd say it is obviously relevant. Pashley 18:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
    • "Retiring abroad" is not "one way to travel". "Cruise ship" is one way to travel. "Segway" is one way to travel. "Retiring abroad" is a reason to travel, and we don't generally have articles on reasons to travel. We don't have articles on "Visiting family in Thailand," "Getting away from work in Thailand," or "Business travel to Thailand", and "Retirement in Thailand" is on par with those topics. LtPowers 19:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, but with caveats. I'm not sure we should rule out retiring abroad as a topic on Wikitravel, but I do think we should delete this article. I would tend to consider retiring abroad to not be travel, but then again, that might be too conservative a position—you could consider retiring abroad the "final travel" (although that seems morbid now that I've written it). The reasons for a retirement abroad are broader than the desire to travel, but I still think travel is playing a role in the decision; one might move to Panama just to cut costs, but my hunch is that's just a perk for an adventurous older couple looking to explore the region and to have monkeys in the back yard and a tropical beach out front. I will suggest we delete this article, since it comes across as a tout piece for retiring in Thailand, and duplicates content in a way that ignores our site's basic organizing logic. So to be clear, I lean in favor of a general article on retiring abroad (if someone were to write it!), but not this article. --Peter Talk 02:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Lots of people like to explore and have monkeys and beaches -- what makes retirement significantly different than other reasons for travel? LtPowers 08:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
      • First off, like existing articles Working abroad and Teaching English, it is long-term. That puts a whole different slant on things than short-term travel. For whatever it is worth, I've done both of the ones I mention, and the classic backpacker Istanbul to New Delhi over land, and will probably retire abroad too. I am not much interested in writing for tourists and business travellers; to me, writing for the long-term travellers is far more interesting. Of course that does not go for all writers, but it is a point of view that deserves consideration.
      • Second, retirees have specific concerns. They are generally older, so health care is an issue. They are often on a fixed income. They may want to choose a place that has good transport links so they can visit home or have friends and family visit, and/or a place with links that let them explore the region; e.g. Thailand or Singapore have visa services and flights that would make exploring South East Asia fairly easy. Because they are making a long-term commitment to a place — moving all their worldly goods, leasing or buying a place, learning the language, ... — they may be more concerned about political stability and crime rates than a shorter-term visitor.
      • Third. retirees need different visas. Some countries (Thailand and Sri Lanka at least) offer visas specifically for retirement. Can one retire in a country that doesn't? How, short of making a large investment in a business or marrying a local?
      • Fourth, they generally use different services and often go to different areas. A tourist stays in a hotel; a retiree buys or rents a house or apartment. A tourist or businessman takes taxis or rents a car; a budget tourist may struggle with local busses. A retiree may buy a car or learn the bus routes. More generally, there are lots of "nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there" places; retirees want something else.
      • I'd say this article is worth keeping, with some cleanup. A more general article on Retiring abroad would be a really good idea. If this article is deleted, any worthwhile bits should be moved there. Pashley 16:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely Keep The article is packed with information and well written. Why delete such a gem? Also, from the comments above it seems that many people have lots of misconceptions about "retirement travel". Fact is, today there's a large class of people who are retiring younger, and with the means to afford international travel and even one or more residences abroad. "Retirement travel" does not mean that a retired persons simply moves to another land never to be heard from again. Rather, lots of people split their time between two or even three countries, sometimes moving with the seasons, other times changing locales to suit their personal, family or medical needs. Essentially, a lot of overseas retirees live a life that combines elements of the expat experience with the tourist experience. It's a huge group -- and in one that in fact includes more than a few Wikitravel contributors. Snub them at our own peril. SONORAMA 11:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Retirement travel, IMO, is a completely valid travel topic and deserves an article, for exactly the reasons that SONORAMA points out. But retirement in Thailand simply isn't the same thing. Keeping this one sets us on one of those slippery slopes we've been warned about. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:28, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
    • Keep, Sonorama gives good reasons. Pashley 09:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Although a good article and thought, it would be better for AARP.2old 09:59, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep with strict focus It's a definite travel topic but currently the article is very general and e.g. the list of airports is redundant with the city articles. So it should focus on specifics for elderly traveller who would like to stay long-term in Thailand. Jc8136 10:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Spas in Thailand

I see nothing in this piece that suggests Spas are any different in Thailand versus anywhere else on the planet. So spas should just be listed in individual articles normally.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep --Sorry Colin, but you are wrong. The most significant difference between spas in Thailand and spas in other parts of the world is that Thai spas emphasize Thai massage. Thai massage is hardly available in most spas in The US, or if it is, it has to be booked in advance. Very very few spas in The US bind spa treatment with Buddhism, unlike Thailand. I think this article has stated quite clearly these major differences. .--Thai-blogs
  • Keep Every country has different cities and provinces specialized in certain different things... am i right? Thailand is also one of them as it specializes in Spas. In this article (as mentioned for Diving in Thailand above) has content specific to the country at which the country is popular for. That doesn't mean that if there are 100 types of spas around the world and Thailand would be specialized in all. So, this article has brought only those spas which are popular in Thailand but not all types.

Moreover, the spa destinations, spa packages, spa programs, Thai spa cuisine provided in this article are all specific to Thailand which the country specializes at. So of course it is not the same as any other country.--Borndistinction 04:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:01, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - I have to agree with Colin, Spas should be listed in individual articles. If they are a specific reason to visit the country then surely a section on the Country page is enough. Tarr3n 12:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I have to agree with the great brains of Tarr3n that there certainly ought to be categories listed in individual categories with a specific reason to visit the country, thus guaranteeing a certain section on the country page. "If they are" (if there are?) countries offering something different oustide of The US, then they out to be deleted, as, who knows? Having a massage elsewhere may be dangerous for one's health. -- Wikitravel = Double Standards? Thai-blogs
    • I don't want to get into a slanging match but I do resent the suggestion that I might be anti Thailand, or (worse?) pro-USA. I've never been to North America and it's not high on my list of places I'd like to visit (though given the current exchange rates between Sterling/Euro against Sterling/Dollar it's starting to look more attractive!). If this vfd had been for spas in USA, Spas in Wales or Spas in Chad I would have given exactly the same opinion. Tarr3n 04:39, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. We prefer to keep information in the actual guide articles, rather than stripping them out into travel topics.... that only becomes necessary when there's an exceptionally large amount of info to write about them that can't fit in the Thailand article. There's plenty of room there to briefly discuss what sets Thai massages apart from those in other countries, etc. Individual spas should only be listed in the city that they are located in. Definitely delete and merge relevant info into the Thailand article – cacahuate talk 21:48, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, I'm not sure that this is a field of pursuit in the same way that, say, diving is. Does anyone travel to Thailand for the primary purpose of going to spas there? JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Spa travel is a huge market including its own magazines, etc. Yes, there is a large class of people who like to travel the world to pampered at various spas. Agreed this might not be everyone's ideal form of travel - but it's definetly an article we shoud keep. If I was looking for a spa or legitimate massage in Thailand, for instance, it would be very nice to have info about them all in one article. SONORAMA 11:35, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Spas are a travel topic comparable to hot springs, rock climbing, and so on. The only problem with this article is that compared to most of what we have here, it's unbelievably, overpoweringly, obtrusively comprehensive -- and given our goals, that's not a bad thing. (It could use some de-touting and tightening, but that's a different story than deletion.) I'd like to see it renamed to something like "[[Spas/Thailand]]" so that it's clearly a descendant node from the main Spas article, but no need to delete it. And yes, JYolkowski, spas are a big attraction in Thailand -- for better or for worse. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Question – How would this be any different than stripping hotels out into a "Hotels in Thailand" travel topic? I fail to see how it's necessary to list them in their own article rather than listing Phuket's spas in the Phuket article. And, if we do agree that the individual listings should be in the individual guides, then is there really so much to say about Thailand's spas that can't be condensed into 2-3 paragraphs in the Thailand article? – cacahuate talk 19:45, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, per Cacahuate's comment. If Thailand's spas are unique enough to merit some discussion, that can be done in the Thailand article under "Do." And we don't want to maintain two lists of spas, one in this article, and one in each destination article. When/if deleting, we should sweep out these listings into the city articles. --Peter Talk 13:09, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, I was again was about to try and sort this mess out, but am hanging my head in defeat yet again. This may look like a lot of good info that we don't want to lose, but in fact it's just a long yellow-pages list, with no reviews or useful info – cacahuate talk 14:50, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

August 2008

John F. Kennedy International Airport

  • Delete?. I don't know for sure that this should be deleted. Does it meet our criteria for an airport getting an article? It should be city-sized to do so, with sleep options within the airport, I believe. --Peter Talk 01:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I'd be willing to waive the "sleep there" requirement for the largest, most complex airports, due to their importance to the traveler. LtPowers 08:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, that's the thing—the largest, most complex airports (like Heathrow, Osaka, and O'Hare for example) all do have sleep options. --Peter Talk 13:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
But it's not just the sleeping options that make those articles useful to the traveler. LtPowers 16:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
The biggest International gateway to the United States should not be deleted from Wikitravel. That's a strange criteria that you have that says that the airport must have an onsite on hotel. Atlanta is the biggest aiport in the world for passengers, Memphis is for cargo, NYC-JFK is the biggest gaetway as already said, and LAX is the second largest gateway and it has no onsite hotel. That's a flawed criteria and these airports should not only be here but all airports should ultimately be here as is the case with Wikipedia. I am updating and significantly expanding the JFK article in preparation for it to remain on Wikitravel. QualityControl3533 02:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Those are all reasons why they would qualify for articles on Wikipedia, but we have much different needs here. The question is whether there's much to say that actually serves a traveler and helps on their trip... information about which airlines fly into JFK and how to get to and from it should be covered in the New York City#Get in section, not in a separate article. Random encyclopedic info about JFK should be covered in the Wikipedia article, not on Wikitravel. Which leaves us with sleeping and eating options, and if there are no sleeping options, we don't exactly need an article about JFK that describes the variance between TGI Fridays in Terminal 1 and TGI Fridays in Terminal 2 – cacahuate talk 19:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
The section you linked largely discusses how to get into New York City from the airports, not how to get in to the airports themselves. Also, in addition to "Eat" and "Sleep", the sections for "Get around", "Stay safe", and "Buy" would be different for airport articles than for their surrounding cities. LtPowers 20:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I haven't even looked at NYC's get in section, it may well need expanding and improving, but without a doubt that's the correct place for the info I mention. And for pretty much any airport you could cover all 3 of the other topics you mention in as many sentences or less, if there's even anything relevant to say at all... "Get around" doesn't need a ton of explaining and can easily fit within the city's get in section, "Stay safe" is irrelevant for most airports but could also be covered in the city article if there's something pertinent and for "Buy", see my TGI Friday's example above ;) – cacahuate talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, it just seems really odd not to have an article on one of the largest airports in the United States. I agree it's not much as far as a destination goes, but surely it's a valid travel topic? LtPowers 10:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not so sure... it's only purpose in life is to act as a portal to NYC, and we can describe how to make use of that just fine in the NYC article... beyond that, all else that you would say about it is probably going to be more relevant to the Wikipedia article on JFK rather than the WT one. Would Rough Guide devote a separate guidebook to discussing JFK? Or even devote a chapter to it? I would guess that they would cover it in a paragraph or two in the NYC guide – cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, here's my mode of thinking. When I fly in to someplace new, if I'm going to be needing to find my way around an airport, I find it useful to know the general layout, where the borders between secured/unsecured areas are, where the food is (is there good food in the terminal wings or should I head out to the main concourse), what stores are available (duty free? not?), how big the place is, and any unusual or unique things to watch out for. That seems like useful information for a travel guide. If you think it can all go in the city article, so be it, but it makes more sense to me to have it in an article about the airport. LtPowers 12:08, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
It is often good info, I just think it should be covered quickly in the city article if it's of note, unless and until it's just too unwieldy – cacahuate talk 15:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Deletecacahuate talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete for reasons given by Cacahuate. WindHorse 23:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
So it isn't helpful to know what cities each airline flies to from the biggest airport in the biggest city in the United States in a "travel guide"??? Also, if you already had the initial information without which cities each airline flies to in the NYC article then why did you create an identical offshoot of the GetIn section to begin with? QualityControl3533 01:34, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, the idea is that we should have information on which cities fly into JFK, but that we shouldn't separate that from the NYC article--spreading information across many pages usually makes finding it more difficult, and should only be done when there's just too much information to include in one article (that's why, for example, it's necessary to split city information for NYC across district pages). In my experience, when an airport isn't big enough for its own article (and to this date, we've only done airport articles for the very largest ones in the world, not just the largest within important cities) it can be helpful to wrap a bunch of airport information into a district article (that contains the airport), along with the usual district info. I did this with Chicago/Midway Area—perhaps that might be a useful way to handle JFK? I don't know, since I've only ever used Newark International for NYC. So I'm still abstaining from a vote for now ;) --Peter Talk 17:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
The only reason that this would qualify as an article is if there was too much valid and well written info in NYC#Get in and it was becoming unruly and gargantuan... that isn't the case... and if it someday becomes the case, then we can discuss at Talk:New York City and come up with a solution then, no? Let's solve the problem once it needs solving – cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Let's merge what we have then and continue the expansion that has already started here in the NYC article then instead of just deleting everything. How about let's stop saying what we know is the best move to make and make it! QualityControl3533 22:56, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge with NYC ArticleQualityControl3533 22:59, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Looks like a consensus is forming around a merge & delete redirect solution. Sounds good to me. --Peter Talk 00:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge and redirect would be better, wouldn't it? LtPowers 10:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes! --Peter Talk 18:37, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm not a regular here, but I say keep - a lot of people come through JFK but are not visiting NYC. JFK is a major hub for international flights. It would be useful to have information there about food, shops, etc. What about internet access? Also, even though there are no hotels right at the airport, what to do if you get stuck there? There are hotels right around the airport. The Ramada Plaza JFK International Airport is located onsite, and there are several others in the area, convenient to the airport. There is plenty to say here that would be far too detailed in the NYC article. It's the same way that an article about Heathrow Airport can be useful, and I wouldn't want to bother finding that all the same information within the London article. Aude 19:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree, but it looks as though the consensus is that until we have that much information on JFK, then there's no need for a separate article. I can see the reasoning. LtPowers 19:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
      • I like Wikitravel, but wouldn't bother looking in the NYC article for information about JFK (if I was just passing through). I would keep looking elsewhere than Wikitravel. Since so many people just pass through, it makes sense to go ahead and keep the article and improve it. Aude 19:36, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
First, don't worry about being a regular or not, your opinion is always welcome ;) You're right—but that's why we should have the redirect to New York (city)#John F Kennedy International Airport. If you search for JFK airport, that should take you straight to the information in the get in section of NYC, where you should find what you are looking for. --Peter Talk 21:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but there is nothing about food or hotels near JFK in the NYC article. Nor should that be the place to put it. Also, I would seriously forget about wikitravel and just look elsewhere. But if we keep the JFK article, then people can put information useful to people passing through the airport and not visiting NYC. And people might find wikitravel useful and not need to look elsewhere. Remember the traveller comes first. Aude 01:43, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge with NYC article Why not have the BEST and MOST comprehensive travel guide that would satisfy anybody's travel needs when using this airport or visiting New York City? If I were going to NYC the first thing I would consider is what airline or transportation takes me to thet city from where I live. My edits to the article, which have now been restored and will be expanded if the article is merged, and incorporating that into the NYC article do just that. Aude is basically saying that we should keep the article solo, removing so much information that their edits had rendered it unfit to stand alone, and then going on to say that Wikitravel isn't really that important anyway so why bother. How does that help anything? QualityControl3533 00:57, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm curious where it is you think you're going to go as an alternative to Wikitravel where you are expecting to find entire chapters devoted to airports and what to do in and around them... I've never come across such a guide – cacahuate talk 01:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge and Redirect. That's where I come down. No one mentions the slippery slope of deciding where the line between large and small airports is drawn? That ought to be worth a couple million lines of off-namespace edits. 12:11, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, I think I mentioned it. The same criterion for any article—can you sleep there. And I don't mean whether it's quiet enough to get a nap across 3-4 seats by the gate. --Peter Talk 21:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)


I'm not completely sure this skeletal article should be deleted; it does point to a real archaeological site. However, I've been unable to find any evidence that it qualifies as a "destination" in terms of places to sleep, etc. Someone want to do some research? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:37, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

September 2008


Only content is copied straight from wikipedia. Too fine grained, corrected information can fit as a single listing in Florida Panhandle. Jtesla16 20:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep - Statement above is ridiculous. The two pages are not even closely related: 18,139 bytes on Wikitravel vs. 2,871 bytes on Wikipedia? All content is either Public Domain or my own creation. Perhaps you have some other agenda? Someone could just as easily claim that Disneyworld and Everglades National Forest are copied from Wikipedia. gamweb 02:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Keepvalid article, I don't see any copyvios. --Peter Talk 12:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

San Diego Zoo


  • Delete. Not a valid travel article topic - advertising. Nrms 11:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)


  • Merge. Not really a travel article - it's more an encyclopedic page. Perhaps more suitable as an item on Tuensang Nrms 08:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

User:It's So Easy Travel Insurance

  • Delete. userpage advertising 2old 09:35, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
    • See Wikitravel Shared, Advertising policy. 2old 11:10, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
      • My understanding is that the advertising policy exists for sitewide advertising by Internet Brands. In the case of an individual user I think Wikitravel:Don't tout and Wikitravel:User page help would probably be the most relevant guidelines. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:03, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. We're generally pretty liberal with user pages, and Wikitravel:Welcome, business owners contains the guidance "'s quite alright to put information about yourself and your business on your User page (if you don't turn it into a marketing brochure)". I don't think this page does more than describe the business, and while it would have been nice if this user made a contribution other than just advertising his business I don't think we want to set a precedent of preventing user pages from containing business info for travel-related commercial contributors. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:21, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Agree with Ryan – cacahuate talk 19:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Pashley 01:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete If we allow unfettered advertising on users homepages, then its a can of worms. Every business can place a full ad page on wikitravel. Waut for the first trademark dispute on usernames. Its far away from the goal of creating a travel guide --Inas 04:40, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Just a note, this is also up for VFD on shared, please voice your opinions there too, since this is a precedent-setting issue – cacahuate talk 01:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. We already established a policy consensus on this issue, and consensus cannot be overturned by vfds, as they require a rationale per policy, provided one exists. In other words, vfds cannot serve as a workaround the consensus process. If we want to readdress the issue, that should be done there, not here. --Peter Talk 10:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
If there is a consensus there, I think it is that user pages should be within reasonable limits, and what is reasonable can be handled through the VFD process (since there is no other!) If this page remains unchanged, essentially it sets a precedent that any company can set up a home page with their ads on wikitravel, no requirement to make a conttribution to the guide, just log on, create an ad, and move on. If we decide that lies within our reasonable limits, then so be it.. --Inas 07:17, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
My understanding of the outcome of that discussion was that we'll respect userspace up to the point at which it becomes linkspam, or is inappropriate because it either: violates our sex tourism policy, or is fraudulent. I'd also delete pages that are being used for cyber-bullying. You'll note that in that discussion I came down on the side of deleting ads in userspace, but my main point is that this page, which is the only page where we use the guilty until proven innocent rule, cannot be used as a workaround discussions or existing consensus. That would violate the basic principle of how our site works, and can really poison debate (this has happened before). Preserving our consensus-based mode of working together is way more important than the outcome of this issue, IMO. --Peter Talk 11:34, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Somewhat ironically, it appears we disagree over the consensus. --Inas 22:00, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Apologies to those who consider that what I have written is not appropriate here. As someone who works in a specialist area of insurance, I was hoping to warn and inform people by writing something. It was my first time visiting the site and I don't wish to contravene its intentions. Somehow, what I wrote was originally in the 'shared' part of the site - I was learning about the site and didn't even realise I was in that section - it was all a bit confusing! I thought I was remaining within the guidelines laid out for businesses. Apologies if I have failed. I would rather amend my article and, hopefully, write others that might be useful to people than just be deleted altogether. I'd be happy to receive guidance. --It's So Easy Travel Insurance 17:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)


  • Delete, or merge into Cancun. An attraction rather than a destination. We had another of these Mexican park/resorts a while back. What did we do with it? Pashley 01:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete It is a beutiful spot, but does not meet the somewhere to sleep criteria. It is also covered in Mayan Riviera, as it should be. 2old 11:01, 26 September 2008 (EDT) Change mine to redirect as Pashley so wisely suggests. 13:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)


I noticed on recent changes that someone had tagged this "vfd", but it was not listed here. I'm listing it now, though it appears to me to be a legitimate destination we should keep. Can someone who knows the area please chime in? Pashley 12:29, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

DELETE I marked it; I have actually been through this "town" which only has a name because of a Post Office, next to a railroad track. There is absolutely nothing of interest here (certainly no place to "sleep" which is a criteria). I believe someone added it to Wikitravel as a joke of some kind. Read the SEE section of the article. gamweb 12:35, 30 September 2008 (EDT)


  • Delete: Not a valid travel article.Jnich99 09:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Speedy deleted. Most definitely not. --Peter Talk 13:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

October 2008


  • Delete. Obsoleted by MoroMap.PNG. Alingelb 13:25, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Speedy deleted per creator's request. --Peter Talk 12:59, 12 October 2008 (EDT)


  • Delete Empty page. Non-travel text was added and then removed by an IP address. Nrms 05:57, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Speedied. Jpatokal 08:39, 9 October 2008 (EDT)


  • Delete Ads, not an article. -- Tatata7 05:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)