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

Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 06:23, 13 November 2008 by Texugo (talk | contribs)
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.

August 2008

September 2008

San Diego Zoo


  • Delete. Not a valid travel article topic - advertising. Nrms 11:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
  • In general, with user talk pages made entirely of advertising, it's best just to blank them, as someone has done. User talk pages are valid on Wikitravel, even if their contents are not. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:06, 21 October 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)

We have an article on Travel insurance. Contributions there would be welcome provided you don't tout. Pashley 06:03, 14 October 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. can't sleep there. --Peter Talk 13:01, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Peter, I believe you misinterpret the "can't sleep there" disqualification; it is intended to address places where it's not possible, or at least legal, to sleep (lakes, day-use parks, etc.), rather than towns lacking hotels. There was a big discussion of this about a year ago IIRC. This tiny town is no less a "destination" in that regard than any number of places in, say, North Dakota that we've always accepted as appropriate for an article. And gamweb, maybe there's nothing of interest to you, but the traveler whose Uncle Egbert lives there would still have reason to refer to Wikitravel before going to visit. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't remember this discussion, but this seems to me not a valid article no matter which way you slice it. I've checked this town, and there are no sights, no hotels/motels—only three establishments of any kind (all eateries/bars). I see no utility in a travel article to such a place. Another example off the top of my head is Pritchet, CO. There is one restaurant and one little shop. Anyone driving through the town will see them immediately (same goes for Dorothy), and can simply walk in and look at the menu. At most, a town/census designated area this small deserves no more than a mention in the get out section of a near town. If the traveler really needs advice on which of the three eateries to go to, he could just ask Uncle Egbert or anyone on the street. --Peter Talk 12:29, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree that the "can you sleep there" metric is intended to help delineate between "destinations" and "attractions", not between "destinations that get an article" and "destinations that don't". On the other hand, "Sleep" is a required section in any destination article, highlighting its importance. LtPowers 13:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Keep If we really want to be a travel guide for the world, I think we should waiver the demand for sleeping as far as actual cities is concerned. Juuuuuust my two cents Sertmann 17:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Is Uncle Egbert in any way related to Joe the Plumber? – cacahuate talk 04:09, 2 November 2008 (EST)

October 2008

Image:Noah webster.jpg

Copyright violation --Nick 01:20, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete Texugo 02:52, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, but only because it's copyright. Edmontonenthusiast 14:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
  • However, it's a Wikitravel Shared image. The process needs to be followed there, not here. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Image:Tong Gu Mountain.jpg

Very tacky-looking text across the photo that reads "Wenchang @ Ton Gu Mountain". Photos should not have text in the image. Also possible copyright violation.

  • Delete Texugo 02:51, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
  • The text part has been fixed by the image's creator(?). What leads you to the conclusion that there's a copyvio? I'd incline to keep it now, unless the copyvio can be documented. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:02, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


Copyrighted image from

  • Delete - Texugo 23:05, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, it's a good pic, but it's copyright. Edmontonenthusiast 14:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
  • The copyvio image appears to have been replaced with a different one. I'd still vote delete, as it doesn't contribute anything notable, but let's make sure that we're acting on the right thing. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)


Copyrighted image from

  • Delete - Texugo 22:44, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Image:West chester pa 547e.jpg

Copyrighted image from

  • Delete - Texugo 23:48, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Image:Fall bluebacksquare.jpg

A painting of a commercial facility. Also a likely copyright infringement but I don't have proof.

  • Delete - Texugo 01:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
With all these copyright's, why not try and get an agreement? I'm on 'delete until further notice. Edmontonenthusiast 14:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Image:Hellertown1.jpg =

Copyrighted image-- copyright notice is printed right on the photo!

  • Delete - Texugo 03:20, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - Sertmann 17:49, 2 November 2008 (EST)


  • Delete Might seem like I'm being unfair here, but the page has nothing linking to it. It refers to an old Scottish County (not UK City as the page states) which no longer exists, and only has one item which is an Inn with only a phone number supplied. The page has been like this since it was created in March 2008.
I'm not sure a page on a defunct county should qualify for a travel guide - seems more an encyclopedic entry unless someone really wants to turn it into some sort of itinery? Nrms 09:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete Sertmann 21:36, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Bus tours‎

I don't see this ever turning into a usable (and/or relevant) article, maybe merge into Oz and NZ, but I don't really see any use for it there either... Sertmann 20:38, 21 October 2008 (EDT).

It could be improved, but I reckon IT IS usable. The site is called wikiTRAVEL, and bus tours are related to TRAVEL. Could you please leave an argument on you petition? James Throwl
Sure, maybe i was a bit rushed and rude, in the nomination text, sorry! As is the case with e.g. train travel, but unlike air travel. It's my opinion that Bus travel is very specific to the country/region where it takes place - and it's my experience from traveling (and I have traveled a lot) that there are very few common denominators to bus traveling around the world. So i feel it's much better left to the country or region page, than as a travel topic. But if you really feel you can make an article like this work, and actually extend it beyond Oz and Nz, I have no objections to withdrawing the nomination. Sertmann 21:32, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Walking is also related to travel, but I don't see a point in writing an article about it. And as it stands, I'm not even sure what the article is about: riding buses in general? tour buses? I can't think of a reason to have bus information separate from destination articles (as a general rule all our travel information should be accessible via the Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy). Why do you think this is necessary? --Peter Talk 21:46, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Real information on this topic is region-specific. -- Colin 17:38, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

TusenFryd, Norways largest amusement park

Doesn't really warrent an article, and the naming is bad bad bad, also see the Talk page Sertmann 22:51, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete or Redirect. Normally, I'd be tempted to just speedy delete this, but a redirect works just fine too. So, as an admin I'd delete, but as a non-admin, I'd just redirect, since that takes less time than a vfd. --Peter Talk 23:07, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, but not speedy. Let's follow the process. A redirect to TusenFryd could be discussed, but I don't think it's correct; the park's own web site basically says there's no lodging there, although there is some nearby. A redirect to Kolbotn might be better; that's where they say the nearest hotel is. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:15, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • The smallest surrounding region for which we have an article appears to be Akershus. Beyond that, I can't say which towns/cities/villages would be worth an article or not. LtPowers 09:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
  • How about a Merge into Oslo#Day_trips? Tarr3n 10:32, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
  • I like your thinking. I'd support a Merge on that basis. Nrms 10:36, 27 October 2008 (EDT)


Includes recognizable people.

  • Delete Texugo 04:12, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
What you want my picture deleted? Why?Edmontonenthusiast 13:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, its a good picture and I kind of find it insulting people don't want my pictures. Kind of lures me away from contributing. I didn't even know this was going on, and it's my picture, I should have known. If I wasn't on, I wouldn't have known. It, to me, shows tourists that this place is busy and that because of that it seems attractive and desirable. Do you just want me to go back without thee market in session and take it as a "blank canvas" with no one there. Ya, thats gonna lure people there tsk tsk. Especially with all the barrenness, yay!Edmontonenthusiast 13:53, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. That's not a comment on the quality of the picture. We're glad you want to contribute pictures. But for legal reasons, it's part of the image policy on this website that photos can't have recognizable people in them - unless they signed a waiver form giving you permission to use their image. Nobody's trying to squash your enthusiasm. That's just the policy by which the several thousand images on this site exist. Here's an example of a photo from a food market where the photographer managed to create a great image of the food and not the people. Gorilla Jones 14:06, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, it's really reassuring. Anyways, I assume it's ok to have people in the picture as long as they aren't recognizable (E.g. far away, head turned, whatever)? Edmontonenthusiast 14:19, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, we have some photos like that. Gorilla Jones 14:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Good, because I've uploaded some photos like that. Edmontonenthusiast 14:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Comment. This isn't really in violation of our policy, none of these people are crucial to the picture, any of them could be removed without changing it. I would, however, like to see a different pic uploaded that maybe has fewer people in it, it would serve the article better. Also, this is image is on shared, we can't vfd a image on shared from the english WT, you have to do it over there :) – cacahuate talk 15:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Cacahuate! Your points are very well taken, the reason why I took that photo is because it looks more appealing seeing a place full of life because then a traveller thinks, "If all those people go there, and seem content, it must be good!" Sadly the only other farmers market pictures (The Old Strathcona one) are of random signs and the xterioer! Edmontonenthusiast 16:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. IMO the people are the focus of the photo, and are easily identifiable. --Inas 21:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
The point was to show the "hustle and bustle" of the area... Edmontonenthusiast 00:34, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The picture of is a crowded market scene, and our policy explicitly allows those. But again, it's a moot point, because this image resides on shared, and anyone wants it deleted they need to nominate it there, not here – cacahuate talk 01:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
But unfortunately I don't think the photo succeeds at that. It doesn't look to me like a crowded market scene, that would show lots of people more anonymously. Instead it shows three people quite close up, and far from anonymous. I'd be annoyed if one of the people in the front of the frame was me. Edmontonenthusiast seems like an engaged, reasonable person. I'm sure if the consensus is that its is inappropriate, he/she will replace it appropriately, and an admin delete won't be necessary. --Inas 01:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Inas! Hey, well sorry I forgot to take pictures I wanted that day because I was so into the market and just took one as I was leaving. I thought if you looked behind those people you'd see people. Anyways I can't really edit 'em out without like destroying the pictures purpose. Although ,you'll have to discuss this on shared. If you guys really hate it, I don't know how to delete, but it can get voted off I guess. I see all your points as valid so there's no point fighting. ¡Bien Días de los Muertes! Edmontonenthusiast 17:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

HK mrt to zhu hai

Looks like a mistake, in any case it was irrelevant as an article Sertmann 13:41, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Lake Maggiore

Bodies of water don't get their own articles per policy.

  • Delete - Texugo 03:53, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
  • I think it may be time to revisit that policy. We have articles on Great Lakes and Lake Titicaca, for example. Lakes and rivers that are likely to be the target of user searches should have articles, even if just to direct the user to other articles. LtPowers 10:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - sometimes lakes refer to a region around the lake, like the Great Lakes. That would seem to me to make them valid articles, because they don't just refer to the body of water, but the surrounding area. This doesn't appear to me to be the case for this article. --Inas 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect - I have to agree with LtPowers in that Lake Maggiore is a likely search target for users. I don't know an awful lot about either of them but my perception would be that Lake Maggiore is of a similar status to Lake Garda, which does have an article. Before being drawn to the articles by this vfd I had never heard of any of the towns listed as being on the shores of them, however I was aware of both lakes as popular destinations for tourists and travellers.
On the other hand I do feel that the policy of bodies of water not being a valid topic is a sound one in most cases. I wouldn't like to see a sudden slew of articles about random rivers, lakes, bays, gulfs etc which would make a mess of the existing geographical hierarchy we have here and which would take up efforts which would be better directed on the relevant regions and cities.
I suggest that this article should be merged into Italian Lake District, with a redirect put in place. Likewise for Lake Garda and Lake Como. Individual listings should be moved into the relevant City/Town articles as and when they get written. Tarr3n 10:09, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Alpine pearls

I'm nominating this one for deletion just to see what happens. I don't think we generally have articles for tourism associations, do we? Texugo 07:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Yah, thats not right, Delete.  :) Keep smilin' Edmontonenthusiast 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge into Alps? It would seem a shame to lose this information about sustainable tourism in such a heavily visited region. Tarr3n 10:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)


  • Delete Not a travel article - more a personal tout Nrms 07:40, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Should be a user page but as this is the only contribution from that IP that doesn't seem relevant. Tarr3n 10:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Uhmm, delete!!!! Keep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 16:05, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


  • Delete Recognizable people in picture Sertmann 05:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - Texugo 08:47, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I mean, it looks like an interesting picture and the people aren't really the focus, they just add to the picture and I like it. They are an element of the picture. It makes it not look like a ghost town, ;). Keep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 16:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. The bike man is the focus of the picture, which is the problem. "Recognizable" isn't the issue though, it's whether any single person is the focus, we allow pictures of markets/crowds with recognizable people as long as they aren't the focus and the picture could stand alone without them – cacahuate talk 03:26, 2 November 2008 (EST)


If neither Wikipedia or Google know of a region named Sintran, i do have my doubt that such place exists ;-) probaby refers to Sintra which already have good coverage

  • Delete - Sertmann 12:10, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Yeah, delete. Keep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 16:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Sintra. General policy is to set up redirects for articles with titles that are plausible typing errors. I'm not totally sure this one qualifies, but what's the harm? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:50, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Sure. Edmontonenthusiast 17:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

November 2008

All images by Wfnicdao

This user uploaded some maps from commons and called them PD when they weren't, so I'm listing all their images here, again all noted as PD, and I doubt they are. If user cares to link to the sources then we can reconsider, otherwise all should be deleted – cacahuate talk 03:22, 2 November 2008 (EST)

  • Delete Not a travel destination Nrms 15:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Paris hotels

This page is unneccessary. Keep smiling, ee talk 23:25, 4 November 2008 (EST).

It's already been redirected to Paris#Sleep, as it should be. LtPowers 12:55, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Sunsip limopani market share

  • Delete Not a travel article. Nrms 03:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)
    • Speedy deleted. No point in waiting. LtPowers 08:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Call of duty 4 modern warfare

Vandalism, someone please speedy this Sertmann 09:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Image:Ocean Rafting brochure.jpg

  • Delete Firstly, because it is likely a copyvio. Secondly, because it is a bizarre concept, that should not be encouraged. Thirdly, it is a really really bad photo. --Inas 00:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete - It's just a bad idea all around. Texugo 00:39, 7 November 2008 (EST)
  • Speedied as copyvio. As a derivative work, the photographer can't release it into the public domain. LtPowers 08:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Ascension Ishinca – Tocllaraju – Alpamayo – Quitaraju

Created presumably as an itinerary, but with text in spanish and an image all copied from

  • Delete -- Texugo 01:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)


As above, image copyright violation from

  • Delete -- Texugo 01:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)
  • Do you have a link directly to the image on that web site? I can't find it. LtPowers 08:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Delete. Keep smiling, ee talk 00:44, 8 November 2008 (EST).
I just suspected it because the entire article was copyvio, but I found the link here. I speedied it. Texugo 00:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Hitchhiking Spots Romania

  • Merge into relevant city articles. Texugo 03:43, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Three gorges dam

An attraction, not a destination. Not properly capitalized, and all content was copyvio from


Improper article title, and all content was copyvio from

  • Delete - Texugo 04:10, 8 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete, unlikely search term with that capitalization. LtPowers 10:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete Pashley 06:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)

How many people are in Vanacover

Obviously not an article, despite the swell spelling job.

  • Speedied - Texugo 04:13, 8 November 2008 (EST)

East chicago

I think the districts of Chicago are already covered pretty well. I wouldn't know what to redirect this to. Texugo 04:20, 8 November 2008 (EST)

  • Redirect . Keep smiling, ee talk 11:01, 8 November 2008 (EST).
  • Speedy redirected to the city of East Chicago, Indiana (It's a suburb). --Peter Talk 13:14, 9 November 2008 (EST)


Official advertising flyers have no place in Wikitravel, not to mention the likely copyright violation.

  • Delete - Texugo 23:52, 8 November 2008 (EST)
  • Delete. Should not be here. Keep smiling, ee talk 23:54, 8 November 2008 (EST).
  • Speedy deleted. Copyvio, trademark violation, and too small to boot. LtPowers 10:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)

  • Delete This is an advertisment page; not a destination. Have left welcome message and some advice on the associated user talk page to try and educate. Nrms 05:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)
    • Speedy deleted. Jpatokal 07:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)

La Linea

  • Delete I added this page before I realised it should have had an accent in the title. The correct page is La Línea, which is where the pages on Algeciras and Gibraltar now link to. Linucks 14:57, 12 November 2008 (EST)
  • Keep - We typically keep the unaccented page title as a redirect, as a courtesy for those who can not conveniently type special characters on their keyboards. Texugo 01:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)