Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/May 2010"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
m (archive)
Line 399: Line 399:
'''Result: Redirected to [[Tripoli]]'''. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) • 22:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
'''Result: Redirected to [[Tripoli]]'''. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) • 22:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::How could this be the result? Nahr-al_Bared is in [[Lebanon]], while [[Tripoli]] is in [[Libya]]???? --[[User:Globe-trotter|globe-trotter]] 15:56, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 20:00, 16 May 2010

Archive for Wikitravel:Votes for deletion acted on in May 2010. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/March 2010 or Wikitravel:Votes for deletion/June 2010 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.


  • Delete. Unused, no model release, no relevance to travel. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:51, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Mister(talk|contribs) 11:25, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete Irrelevant jan 09:52, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Clear delete

. --globe-trotter 10:16, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Looks like a probably copyvio to me. LtPowers 20:30, 8 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete - It's far too small to be legible anyway. Texugo 22:04, 8 November 2009 (EST)
On shared, can't take any action here. - Dguillaime 00:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Handled on shared:. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Another one from Huntingdon Valley. I guess there is a WT school project in the Philadelphia area at the moment? The image is from glencairn.org. The page seems to have been taken down but you can see the identical thumbnail in a Google image search here. --Burmesedays 11:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Also on shared. - Dguillaime 00:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Handled on shared:. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

DFDS Seaways

Wikitravel:What_is_an_article? states companies don't get pages. Nrms 12:12, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Speedy deleted as advertising. (Turns out that's the second time, too!) -- D. Guillaime 12:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Seems to be one of those ex-Soviet state factional things (for want of a better way of putting it!) The page itself is a political statement of no use here. I'm not sure, however, if it is likely to become a destination. Alternative is to follow the English Wikipedia stance and redirect to Armenia. (Other Wikipedias do have a page for Ermenistan, but given I think Google page translations are blocked where I am, I don't want to try and get translations. Nrms 11:28, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Asian take out restraunts in lausanne

  • Speedy: Would never call for an article, and the first edition of thepage is just graffiti anyway! Nrms 11:29, 6 March 2010 (EST)
  • Speedied - Texugo 11:57, 6 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Warung pecel solo

  • Delete Not suitable for article guidelines. - SnappyHip 20:47, 9 March 2010 (GST)
  • Speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 12:30, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Kuala Lumpur/www.lemeridien.com/kualalumpur

  • Delete woohoo, it's not a destination but is a hotel listing. - SnappyHip 7:10, 10 March 2010 (GST)
  • Speedied.--Burmesedays 22:23, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Wikitravel isn't a drug store or an online store that advertises viagra or any kind of drug-related things.

  • Delete -SnappyHip 8:39, 10 March 2010 (GST)
  • Speedied again. I am a bit surprised to see that one as Talk Rome/ has been a spam magnet and well watched. Thanks SnappyHip.--Burmesedays 23:48, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Speedy delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Mabul map.gif

Clear copyvio as it helpfully tells us in the middle of the map. I have already removed from Mabul. Somehow it has survived here since August 2008 --Burmesedays 05:30, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:58, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

São Paulo

I don't think anyone reads the talk page of the article, so I am bringing up this issue, since it has been around since 2006: The article naming conventions as well as consensus on the article's talk page show that the article should be Sao Paulo (without the ã). This requires admin to do, I believe, since Sao Paulo has already been created, right? That is why I bring it up here. It would be nice to finally get this right and make it a redirect to Sao Paulo. São Paulo (state) is the same. ChubbyWimbus 20:14, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Sounds appropriate. In the future, though, Wikitravel:Requests for comment is a better way to draw attention to a non-deletion discussion that is going unnoticed. --Peter Talk 20:21, 8 February 2010 (EST)
The current setup (with the São Paulo and a redirect from Sao Paulo) is fine to me and complies with Wikitravel:Naming conventions policy that the name with no diacritics be a redirect. Usage of the tilde in English is mixed, with the following English-language sources using it:
AHeneen 01:03, 9 February 2010 (EST)
I've added a request at Wikitravel talk:Naming conventions#Latin Characters for anyone who understands what constitutes a "Latin character with or without accents/diacritics" to add some additional clarification in the naming guidelines as this seems to be a constant point of confusion for contributors, particularly those of us in the US. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:43, 9 February 2010 (EST)
I think that's a good idea. There was previously consensus on Sao Paulo, but now that I've brought it up, new views are going the other way! ChubbyWimbus 02:35, 9 February 2010 (EST)
Be a lot bloody easier if we just said "write in English and don't use accents and diacritics". But I know that will never get past the umlaut and tilde brigade :). --Burmesedays 02:56, 9 February 2010 (EST)
I have to agree with Burmesedays. If the rule was simply: "English Wikitravel is written in English", things would be much simpler. ChubbyWimbus 03:19, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Kept. Naming conventions have been discussed and updated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:01, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Pristina Monument.jpg

Delete. Copyrighted image on flickr and claimed to be CC-A 2.5 on Wikitravel. In addition there is a similar photo on flickr under CC-A : http://www.flickr.com/photos/martijnmunneke/2691578367/ Sissou 00:19, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:04, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

News articles and category in Korean

These are useless for en: since they are written in Korean. And they are also useless for ko: since ko: has no travel news section now. That language version is still translating policies and guidelines.

  • Delete. -- Tatata7 04:50, 4 November 2009 (EST)
  • Ask a Korean to delete. Only they can be sure if this is actually useful. They may be able to move it somewhere useful. Or they may be able to explain it, ask for a short-term exception that allows this oddity on English WT. I'd be inclined to say no since other versions have been started without visible problems on en:, but there is a precedent (see above) so perhaps we should just live with it for a while. Pashley 06:21, 4 November 2009 (EST)
Can't we just move the info to ko, and it can be sorted there? --inas 14:16, 4 November 2009 (EST)
  • Keep until the Korean language version has the equivalent articles, then ask someone on Wikitravel/ko: who is a go-between to nominate articles here. I would rather these articles hang around here until we are certain they have been translated and created correctly on ko:. And yes there are precedents for doing this. A few years ago, I recall one of the other language versions was set up on Wikitravel/en: until they could get the language version setup file translated. Huttite 08:45, 6 November 2009 (EST)
  • Delete Everything Korean, it's completely bogus and unusable for the guys over there, as it's all very poorly translated by a robot thanks to our "dear" mkPaolo. They're not going to use it, and we have even less reason too. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 14:45, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Are any of the above opinions changed by Stefan's information? Despite the lack of interwiki links, it's clear that most (perhaps all, I didn't check every one) of those articles have already received translations on ko, and even without reading Korean it's obvious that they're not direct copies (e.g. Wikitravel:Deletion policy/koko:Wikitravel:삭제_정책). - D. Guillaime 16:49, 10 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete all per Stefan. --Peter Talk 02:15, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:06, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Monticello Railway duplicates

These are all smaller-size duplicates of Image:Monticello Railway.jpg and thus unneeded. Image:Monticello Picture.jpg is the one in use, but I see no compelling reason not to switch it out for the larger image. These were uploaded here by User:WikiTravel, but a duplicate that exists on shared (shared:Image:Monticello 2.jpg) was uploaded by shared:User:Ariel. See also #Image:Sages.jpg. LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

  • Delete. I get the feeling we should just wait for the assignment due date, and then clean up Monticello --inas 22:24, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed. Since they still seem to be at it, I let these slide for today's cleanup pass.

Result: Delete -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:08, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Ariel Lickton's images

All of these have duplicates currently on Shared. Admittedly, they're up for deletion there, too, but even if they're kept on Shared, we don't need the duplicates here. See also #Image:Sages.jpg LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:20, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


This one was uploaded to shared as shared:Image:Community flair.jpg by shared:user:Ariel (who appears to be the same as en:User:Ariel Lickton, see also #Ariel Lickton's images) but here on :en it was uploaded by User:WikiTravel. Hmm! Anyway, since it's duplicated on Shared, we don't need it here. See also #Monticello Railway duplicates LtPowers 20:22, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:20, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Monticello Railway.jpg

Another one by user User:Ariel Lickton‎, no licensing information, and no responses of any sort on talk page. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 10:11, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Technically User:WikiTravel, but appears to be the same person based on uploads. If we delete this one, though, we should delete all of her images; this one is no more or less suspicious than any of the others. Lack of licensing information is hardly a barrier; as Jani has pointed out several times, all image uploads are licensed CC by-sa 1.0 by default. (I'm not a fan of this policy, mind you, but it seems to be established convention.) LtPowers 14:01, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:20, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Fueda park

An attraction, not a destination.

  • Merge with Kamakura and Delete - Texugo 00:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Merge, and possibly redirect, as this would stop a future creation of the same attraction article. Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:09, 26 November 2009 (EST)
  • Merge and redirect. The capitalisation is wrong though so I guess a redirect should be there for Fueda Park as well. --Burmesedays 06:21, 26 November 2009 (EST)

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:26, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete - According to Google, this appears to be the name of a Japanese company, not a place. - Huttite 03:33, 24 November 2009 (EST)
There is now some content in the article. As it is only 15 mins from Hakodate airport though, my guess is it should be covered in that article? I have found a ref to Kameo School in Hakodate and this implies Kameo is a district of Hakodate I think? --Burmesedays 10:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)
and a map here. --Burmesedays 10:36, 25 November 2009 (EST)

Let's keep it... I appreciate the need for oversight and realize that this action had good intentions, but obviously this deletion recommendation has jumped the gun. I worry that this action and others on the Wiki Travel Japan section recently (such as the editing of Sugamo and Komagome) are being influenced by a narrow perspective. Are we trying to make Wiki Travel Japan into a Lonely Planet type guide book? At this point in our project, I would prefer that we give more leeway to locals trying to introduce their cities... That means leeway with language use (correct errors but respect phrasing - No need to describe the price of Soba in a sarcastic way - although I did think it was funny) and leeway with the way things are categorized (there's no need to lump Sugamo into Toshima Ward, is there?). In short, let's err on the side of caution when we see an entry by a non-native speaker. This will allow more and more Japanese to take part in Wiki Travel which seems necessary, especially at this point in its development. By black turtleneck

This is a town of Hokkaido, so this isn't a company. By Mi

I can support keeping this while people add the info, but there are way too many Japanese destinations being created for places that don't need articles. I think this, as well as others, need to be merged. How long do we wait though? ChubbyWimbus 20:43, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I understand your idea. However,Kameo has many good things. I think Hakodate has a lot of information.So,people don't have rection to Kameo. What do you think? By Mi —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

  • Merge - Kameo is still a relatively small neighborhood of Hakodate, which is not big enough to have its article subdivided. I don't see any point at all in waiting till people add more information here before merging it. I doubt if there is too much more to add anyway, and the redirect will just help people realize they should add any info to the correct place, in the Hakodate article.Texugo 23:22, 14 January 2010 (EST)
  • Merge - If Kameo should have its own article, it would be a district of Hakodate, I guess, but Hakodate is not ready for districtification (and might never be), so there is no need for this article and its content could just as well be merged into Hakodate, ClausHansen 23:56, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I read everyone opinion,I felt it is good to be merger. by Mi

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:06, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Not an article but an attraction.

  • Delete --Burmesedays 09:59, 16 December 2009 (EST). Having read the comments below, reiterate delete. Each relevant destination will come up in searches anyway. --Burmesedays 22:05, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to the appropriate London district - London/Mayfair-Marylebone? Redirect or delete. If redirected then redirect to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. A disambiguation page seems like overkill, and as to redirecting the London location is the original and seems to be by far most famous - see for example Wikipedia which states "Madame Tussauds is a wax museum in London with branches in a number of major cities." -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:27, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • I guess someone might search for it. Yes, London/Mayfair-Marylebone would be the correct re-direct. --Burmesedays 10:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. There are nine Madame Tussauds [1] spanning three continents. We usually redirect attractions, but there's no clear redirect here. We could disambiguate it, but I'm not sure if we've been doing that for attractions. In this case, it should be easier to just delete. --Peter Talk 14:03, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Keep. I see no reason not to disambiguate, as we did with SeaWorld. LtPowers 17:15, 16 December 2009 (EST)
  • Redirect to London/Mayfair-Marylebone. That's the original Madame T's and a significant London attraction. I don't think a disambig is worth the trouble; no traveller will need that list, but many visitors to London might want to find this. Pashley 17:29, 16 December 2009 (EST)
The others are very much significant attractions—google Madame Tussauds and D.C.'s will come up first. I'm sure plenty of travelers would not even realize the original was in London (I do only after living there). --Peter Talk 01:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete or Disambiguate. My first impulse is to agree with Peter to delete. It is just an attraction, and after we delete this a search will return all the articles that mention it, which hopefully will provide the best assistance to the traveller. However, if we are going to redirect, I think it is wrong to assume the traveller is searching for the London attraction. A person searching for the fishermans wharf attraction doesn't deserve to be redirected to a london district, before having to perform a more general search, just to save us some effort writing the disamb. We don't follow the by far the most famous mantra for a disambiguation page do we? --inas 17:45, 16 December 2009 (EST)
    • Even if we did, the one in London is clearly not "by far the most famous" of the locations. Also, the problem with relying on search results is that "Tussauds" is a word very likely to be misspelled, which the search engine doesn't handle well. If we have a disambiguation page, we can set up redirects from likely misspellings (like Madam Tussaud's). LtPowers 08:50, 17 December 2009 (EST)
      • That may have inadvertenly answered a question I posed elsewhere. So WT does set up re-directs for spelling mistakes?--Burmesedays 10:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Absolutely, per Wikitravel:How to redirect a page. --Peter Talk 11:45, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Merge content with London/Mayfair-Marylebone and Redirect is my first reaction, considering the listing on the page. However, considering that this is a rather famous tourist attraction that is branching out, a disambiguation page would certainly be another way of seeing travel and perhaps put the traveler first. It could even lead into a travel topics about touring London or famous museums and art galleries to visit around the world. The criteria for having at least a redirect probably should be fame. Besides, it will probably come back and haunt us if we delete it now the page has been created. - Huttite 03:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure why, but I feel like making a disambiguation page with links to the relevant districts (and it needs to be districts in order to be useful) in Amsterdam, Berlin, Las Vegas, London, New York City, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Washington, D.C. and Hollywood. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. I'm basically in agreement with Burmesedays, and would not even expect to find an article with this title on WT because it's an attraction, not a geographic destination. Barring a major change in policy, I think having only a few such attraction articles with no consistent reasoning will be more confusing to WT users, not less. - D. Guillaime 18:27, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Hmmmmm, SeaWorld precedence? --Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:58, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Ouch... this discussion is probably better for Wikitravel talk:Disambiguation pages, but my preference would be to NOT create disambiguation pages for attractions and instead always use redirects, UNLESS the attractions warrant their own articles (such as Disneyworld). In the case of SeaWorld a redirect to Amusement would seem preferable rather than opening a can of worms for determining when an attraction is "famous enough" that a disambiguation page is warranted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:17, 19 December 2009 (EST)
In the case of SeaWorld, how is a redirect to Amusement more helpful to the traveler than a page listing the destinations that have SeaWorlds? LtPowers 19:17, 19 December 2009 (EST)
For me, this is less about "more useful to travelers" than it's about figuring out where to draw a line as to what gets a disambiguation page. If someone bothered to create a page for an attraction it probably makes sense to create a redirect so that a) anyone looking for that attraction in the future will have a pointer to it and b) it won't get created again. If instead we create a disambiguation page it puts us into the uncomfortable position of having to figure out where to draw the line between "useful to travelers" and spam. Does SeaWorld get a disambiguation page? If so, does the Ripley's Believe-it-or-not museum? Does the Hard Rock Cafe? Seems like a slippery slope that we could avoid by just saying "any attraction that does not warrant its own article should not be given a disambiguation page". -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Ryan hits the nail on the head I think. If the attraction does not warrant an article, then why disambiguate? Except for very few especially large, important attractions WT has articles about geographic destinations and not attractions. And as Dgulliame states, disambiguating an attraction which you would not expect to have an article according to policy, will create confusion. --Burmesedays 23:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Wikitravel:The traveller comes first. I understand the slippery slope -- we don't want to become a yellow pages, after all -- but there are certain internationally-known destinations that are specifically sought out by travelers. I can imagine Madame Tussauds being on the cusp of appropriateness, but I think SeaWorld clearly qualifies. LtPowers 08:30, 20 December 2009 (EST)

This ↑ is why I suggested it might be easier to just delete the article. But since we're having this discussion, lets stop having it on the vfd page and move to Wikitravel talk:Disambiguation pages#Non-articles. (The vfd page is for interpreting policy, not deciding it.) Discussion to clarify our disambiguation policies is long overdue anyway (probably because disambiguation is boring). --Peter Talk 15:39, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Result: Delete. Per policy, without a consensus to keep an article the article should be deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:12, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Delete. Looks like an obvious copyvio. The url is even on the map. --Burmesedays 03:16, 30 January 2010 (EST)
  • The same file has been uploaded again in png format image:Sucremap.png. --Burmesedays 04:48, 30 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete all. I'll go further and recommend all images uploaded by this user for deletion—I get hits on tineye for others as well from other all rights reserved sites. They also were improperly uploaded to :en (despite all the ridiculous warnings at the upload page), have extremely resolutions, lack source info, etc. --Peter Talk 13:39, 30 January 2010 (EST)
On a related note I'm a bit worried about the discrepancy between the English proficiency the user has provided on talk pages, and that of the text uploaded. I've searched Google, and haven't so far been able to locate any phrases used elsewhere, but I would like some assurance before I start fixing up the format on the National Park articles; Yacapana National_Park and Cerros Duida and Marahuaca National Park - so Carolina, could you please confirm that it's your own text, or that you are allowed to use it wikitravel. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:51, 30 January 2010 (EST)
I have confirmed that much if not all of it is copyrighted work from other websites. --Peter Talk 14:14, 30 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete all. If there is no reponse shortly on the user talk page to concerns raised there, I would also revert all text edits made. A large effort has been made to engage this user to no effect. The longer it is left, the tougher it will be to clean up.--Burmesedays 22:26, 30 January 2010 (EST)
    • She responded on Peter's talk page; I wouldn't say there's been no effect. It's possible she hasn't discovered her talk page yet. LtPowers 08:58, 31 January 2010 (EST)
She saw it. She's denying the text copyvios, though, probably from not understanding that plagiarism counts even if you're not going word for word (and translating). --Peter Talk 14:10, 31 January 2010 (EST)
  • Store.Mistertalk 08:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)
    • Do you mean "Keep"? Why? LtPowers 09:26, 2 February 2010 (EST)
      • Yes, but I do not mean all the pictures but the one. Therefore the this. Mistertalk 10:06, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • But why should we keep it? It's not freely licensed. LtPowers 14:07, 2 February 2010 (EST)
I would like to remind Mr Man that a policy rationale must be given for votes on this page, otherwise they are considered irrelevant. --Peter Talk 15:43, 2 February 2010 (EST)
I'm sorry, i don't know; Now I'm for Delete all. Mistertalk 12:00, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Result: All deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:22, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Sądecki Beskids

OK, I'm nominating this one, even though I'm not 100% certain... Should mountain ranges have pages? I know the Alps does, but that is major range. This one seems to be soley within Poland, and I can't say I've ever heard of it before. Applying the old "can you sleep there?" would seem to make it a candidate for deletion too. Nrms 14:28, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Redirect to Małopolska Voivodship (an article which needs a lot of attention, redirecting to itself etc). --Burmesedays 23:42, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:27, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Playas De Este

It's a beach, so probably not worthy of its own article. Nrms 12:06, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:29, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


A copyvio (from Wikipedia)and somewhat sounds boring.

  • Delete - SnappyHip 00:08, 9 April 2010 (GST)
Agreed it is a mess, but we can either tidy it up, and remove or attribute any copied test. At worst, just blank it and apply the standard template. --inas 20:54, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
Done. It was a full scale copy-paste of a WP article that is in poor shape anyway. --Peter Talk 21:13, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:32, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Acropolis CM.jpg

Some dude's mug in front of a restaurant window. Image here on en: rather than on shared.

  • Delete - Texugo 21:05, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Image:Rovaniemi yangtsefly.jpg

With a border and in-image caption, it violates our only simple photography guideline, plus it resides here on en: rather than on shared.

  • Delete - Texugo 02:29, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Serra da mantiqueira

A mountain range shared by three states. Most of the information more properly belongs in either Southeast (Brazil), Itatiaia National Park, or other respective city, state, or region articles.

Result: Template:Merge added. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Golf in Thailand

I'm trying to clean up Thailand, and also one travel topic I really don't like. Just look at it-- it's a gigantic link dump of golf facilities from TAT, the Tourist Authority of Thailand. No one is ever going to clean up this mess and make it into something usable, so I suggest we delete it. In case others feel it's necessary, I could also move the listings to the Talk pages of the cities for future reference. --globe-trotter 12:27, 6 February 2010 (EST)

  • Awful. Empty and redirect to Thailand#Do. The only information I would keep is the golf course association contact details. Put it in the country article along with a short para about playing golf in Thailand.
  • Thailand Golf Courses Association (TGCA) 96 Moo 3 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Road, Kwang Taladbangkhen, Laksi, Bangkok 10210 (Tel: 0 2266 5234 Fax: 0 2552 3783, 0 2973 4606) --Burmesedays 23:46, 6 February 2010 (EST)
I now wrote a paragraph about Golf in the Do-section of the Thailand article. Also placed the listing there. --globe-trotter 18:49, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:41, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Athirappilly Falls

Only an attraction.

  • Merge and redirect- Texugo 11:25, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Template:Merge added. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:44, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

One week in Howell, Michigan

Empty article for spending a week in a tiny town under 10,000 people with no particular attractions to speak of. We don't even have an article for this town yet. I suspect this is a joke. Texugo 21:25, 4 March 2010 (EST)

  • Delete Texugo 21:27, 4 March 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. For the same reasons.--Burmesedays 20:55, 6 March 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. Weird mix of seemingly pointless and seemingly useful edits from this user(s). I speedy deleted its blank, orphaned Narragansett itinerary as well. --Peter Talk 00:24, 7 March 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. For above reasons. --globe-trotter 13:53, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Recognizable people.

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


According to Wikitravel:Bodies of water, articles about bodies of water isn't valid as an article.

Result: Redirect. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Vfd'd for three reasons: 1) it shouldn't be uploaded here on the English site, 2) it violates the people in photos policy, and 3) the uploader stated that it was uncopyrighted and released into the public domain, but this is unverifiable, and Tineye led me to this page where it a copyright notice shows it to be property of Guia Geográfico.

  • Delete - Texugo 11:53, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think all images uploaded at en are now being automatically deleted. --Burmesedays 12:12, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete I think copy vio is given. jan 12:27, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


Not an article. It is a building in Brussels.--Burmesedays 12:50, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

  • Just Redirect it; no need for a discussion. LtPowers 14:10, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
  • In which case it would be nice if someone actually did the work required to merge the article into Brussels, rather than just talking about it.--Burmesedays 22:29, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Done. Merged into Brussels.--Burmesedays 22:41, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
  • Sorry, since you nominated it for deletion, I assumed nothing there was worth keeping. LtPowers 13:54, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirect. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)


A river. Shep 15:03, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Result: Redirect. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:49, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

London on a budget

  • Delete. We already have budget sections in both our eat and sleep sections in our main article, so anything along that line is immediately redundant. We have attractions and prices in the main article - the reader can determine what is within their budget relative to the experience. We already give the full range of transport and discount ticket options in the main article. What could be placed here that won't just be a duplicate of our primary content?

It will always be a temptation for every hotel and hostel to list here, as well as the primary article. --inas 16:59, 18 February 2010 (EST)

  • Delete Opens the doors for redundancies and will primarily attract hostels. Saving money can be part of the sections in the main article as no traveller likes to waste money. jan 10:15, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:56, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Hume Highway

Clearly not a destination, ClausHansen 11:08, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Delete. We've got a few highway itinerary articles, but a mere 880km of generic inter-city freeway doesn't look like a promising basis for another. There's certainly nothing to salvage in its current form, so it'd need starting from scratch regardless. -- D. Guillaime 00:29, 12 February 2010 (EST)
Delete. Same reasons. --Burmesedays 08:07, 14 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Delete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:53, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Nahr al-Bared

Not sure what to do with this one.. it doesn't even look a little bit like a traditional Wikitravel article. .--globe-trotter 08:54, 23 February 2010 (EST)

  • Redirect to North Lebanon.--Burmesedays 20:56, 23 February 2010 (EST)
  • Redirect to Tripoli - It is a 0.2 square km refugee camp mostly destroyed in the 2007 conflict and currently under reconstruction. I can't find any evidence of the existence of any attraction or place to stay (including those mentioned in the current article); it doesn't really seem like a place tourists should go. If we do find any evidence to the contrary, it could still probably be summed up succinctly in a Get out listing in the Tripoli article, since it's only 4 miles from downtown Tripoli. Texugo 21:41, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Tripoli. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

How could this be the result? Nahr-al_Bared is in Lebanon, while Tripoli is in Libya???? --globe-trotter 15:56, 16 May 2010 (EDT)


  • Does not appear to be a destination, --ClausHansen 01:02, 4 March 2010 (EST)
I believe this is a less common spelling for wikipedia:Mala, Kerala (my google-fu for obscure locations is getting good here). Mala looks awful small, though—I'm not sure it meets our article criteria. Since the content is nonexistent, it would have been fine to just speedy delete, but I have instead speedy redirected it to Kochi (region). --Peter Talk 01:35, 4 March 2010 (EST)
Perhaps the person that started the page intended it to be a travel topic about festivals in South Asia and south asian themed festivals in the rest of the World? Tarr3n 04:59, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected to Central Kerala. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:14, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Japan/World Fact Book

I'm not really sure what this page is supposed to achieve, but Japan is the only country with such a page, and it doesn't look useful. ChubbyWimbus 23:49, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Ah, I see I'm mistaken. Other countries are listed as Talk pages. But what is the purpose of Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import/Reference index? Is it (still) useful? ChubbyWimbus 23:53, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import provides the background information. It seems that it had some use in the very earliest days of Wikitravel before there was even a complete set of country articles, but (1) the last factbook-based article was removed in 2006, and (2) I can see no good reason to keep a 2002 mirror around when the real thing [2] is online and continuously updated. - D. Guillaime 00:13, 15 January 2010 (EST)
... in fact, I'll go one step further and submit for discussion:
Keep - reason moved to discussion re all factbook pages - Huttite 18:54, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Wikitravel:CIA_World_Factbook 2002 import/Reference index and all Factbook 2002 Import pages

The reference index describes itself as "This page exists to keep track of how far de-factbookizing has progressed" -- a task that was largely completed six years ago, and fully completed in mid-2006. Mirroring the factbook wasn't particularly popular at the time, judging by the discussion, but it's even less so now: the import is severely out of date, the CIA World Factbook itself is still freely available and routinely updated online, and I simply see no value in maintaining pages that are unused, unusable, and can't productively be edited. Additionally, since the Wikitravel_Talk: namespace is indexed by search engines, these pages do show up in search results, which is needlessly confusing. I'm only proposing deletion of the factbook import itself, not any of the discussion pages.

( I personally think this is also a problem, but it's a broader issue that can only be resolved by the tech team.) - D. Guillaime 16:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

  • Delete. It's an artifact & unnecessary for today's site. I also don't think there is anything or any record lost in the delete, since the basic info remains available through the CIA World Factbook. --Peter Talk 16:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • Keep - The factbook pages are an archive of source factoids. Besides, it is not policy to delete these factbook archive pages, rather great care was taken to preserve them - Japan's one was preserved as an article sub-page rather than a talk sub-page, because it was one of the first to be done. They are doing no harm and deletion would not save space because the deleted pages are still retained by the server. The purpose of Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import/Reference index is to stop these pages being orphaned and keep track of what articles were defactbooked. Also, the factbook pages provide the original context for maps and flags as well as some useful documentation about how countries are administered. In the last few days I consulted the Puerto Rico factbook article to understand how a country is best regionalised. I dare say that many other factbooks still are useful for similar reasons, so they should be kept. - Huttite 18:44, 16 January 2010 (EST)
I'm not saying that the factbook itself is not useful, but only that our unofficial, eight year old mirror is not useful. The factbook source is the same place as ever [3], and unlike our copy is still up to date. There's no need to keep track of what articles were defactbooked any more, because it's "all of them". - D. Guillaime 22:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. Huttite hits the nail on the head, saying that that all history is maintained anyway, if there is any reason to ever go back to this info, it can be recovered easily. The active pages on the site should be kept current, keeping this stuff around is confusing to new users, and unnecessary. --inas 17:16, 17 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. It's old, we don't use it anymore, I see no reason to keep it. And if we need its info, we could always look it up from an updated source. --globe-trotter 13:18, 18 January 2010 (EST)
  • Delete. As said above, I don't see any reason at all to keep obsolete archive copies. Jpatokal 10:47, 4 February 2010 (EST)
  • I'm ambivalent about keeping vs. deleting factbook pages, but if consensus is to delete all of them that's a potentially big job, so could a few more people chime in before we undertake deletion of a few hundred articles? Per [4] there are 691 results, although some of those are probably false positives. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:01, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
    • I would have commented but consensus seemed clear. I see no reason to keep an out-of-date archive of material available elsewhere. LtPowers 13:36, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
      • Consensus is definitely clear from those who have commented, but given the fact that we're talking about deleting 300+ articles it would be nice to get some indication that a wider audience has read this discussion and is OK with what's going on just so that we're 100% certain we won't get part way done and have to stop or (worse) have to undo the action once it's complete. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:29, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
        • Does anyone else have any comment? This discussion is several months old, so pending further objection all remaining factbook pages are gonna go boom. Speak now or forever hold your peace... -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:02, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Given the lack of comment I think consensus to delete is clear. The following is a list of every (I think) article with "Factbook" in the name. This first seven may or may not be deletion candidates per this VFD, the remainder clearly are.

Possibly delete:


-- Ryan • (talk) • 18:23, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. Note that the "possibly delete" articles were re-listed as VFD candidates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 9 May 2010 (EDT)


Orphaned stub about a hotel listing, which is already properly placed in Lushoto article. Not sure if it should be redirected or deleted. – Vidimian 08:25, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

If it's the name of a place, we redirect, but I believe we delete the names of hotels and other businesses so that we don't encourage the creation of such articles/redirects. So, Delete. LtPowers 17:38, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:04, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

First trip to Asia

  • Delete. Stub itinerary that has not been edited in over a year. Per current guidelines (Template:Outlineitinerary) that's enough to trigger deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:35, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. Glad to see that we are following through on that discussion. --Peter Talk 11:24, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. jan 07:25, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Burmesedays 12:26, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. I think the southeast Asian itineraries should be renamed, the article names are boring. -SnappyHip 13:45, 6 May 2010 (GST)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:04, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Maramures and the Mountains Tour

  • Delete. Outline itinerary that has not been edited in over a year. Per current guidelines (Template:Outlineitinerary) that's enough to trigger deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:41, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 11:24, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. jan 07:24, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Burmesedays 12:26, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:04, 16 May 2010 (EDT)