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

Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for deletion

Default Banner.jpg

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.

Please archive according to the date deleted, not the date nominated:


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.
  2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
  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.


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 you feel that way. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page and copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy the deletion discussion to the appropriate archive.

May 2009


  • Delete. Unless I've missed something, the only acceptable articles on Shared are image categories, policy pages, and tech requests. --Peter Talk 18:30, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
No harm done, in my view, just redirect to Category:Portugal. Jpatokal 22:35, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
Wrote that before looking at the page, and damn, somebody's put a lot of work into it... but no harm in copying it to Category:Portugal, I presume? Jpatokal 22:37, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Holy crap, that was a ton of work! Before deleting though, let's make sure to add cat:portugal to each of the images – cacahuate talk 23:17, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. I can't find a written policy that prohibits this type of page, and it seems to have great value in that it categorizes and annotates images that would otherwise be lumped together in Category:Portugal and its geographic subcategories. LtPowers 07:47, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Perhaps it should be written, but I don't think anyone could have foreseen this before it happened :) Current consensus & practice is to use categories. Creating country pages would be a totally new direction for Shared, and should be discussed somewhere other than VFD if it's a direction we want to take. I can appreciate the effort this user put into the page, but I find it highly unlikely that we will take things in this direction, especially considering the amount of manual work involved – cacahuate talk 15:24, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
I seem to recall being told that I had to reference specific policies that support deletion, but maybe that was just on :en. LtPowers 18:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
That was also a situation where your vote ran counter to policy, restored a nomination speedy kept by another administrator, ran counter to all practice throughout the history of the site, and had the sole effects of serving as an insult to me, furthering drama that wasted a lot of other peoples' time and effort, encouraging an editor in misuse of process who had just returned from Wikitravel's first ever and only user ban, and generally contributing to the less collegial and friendly atmosphere that we have today between regular editors.
In this case, we don't have a "What is an article?" policy here because we don't have articles. We don't have a policy here stating that users can't write articles on sink installation either, but it runs clearly enough counter to practice that I think a delete (or a redirect per Jani's suggestion) would be sensible. I think we would need a policy discussion before introducing an entirely new category of work into Shared, but I think, given the work that has gone into this, it would be best to move it into the users' userspace until we have a discussion regarding organization of content—our category system is sub-optimal. --Peter Talk 06:12, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
I don't see what is the problem with this page. Afterall, there are other pages like this one, like Spain, and there is no written policy that prohibits this page. --Tiagox2 11:07, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
I just speedy deleted Spain, as it seemed a clear mistake, and lacked any useful content. One important issue that has not yet been brought up is that the main namespace on Shared is used for policy articles, and should not be mixed with image categorizing, which we have left solely up to our category namespace. There might be a place for this type of page, but I think we should move it out of the main namespace, and get a discussion going. --Peter Talk 20:21, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
In the Deletion policy says: "if we get plenty of pictures from the same location, an article page may be used and the images put into a gallery on that page".
That was added (without discussion, as far as I can see) prior to the use of categories, which render them irrelevant anyhow. It was never implemented, and runs counter to practice. I'll update the policy now to reflect that – cacahuate talk 16:22, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Categories do not entirely render article-space pages irrelevant. Mostly, maybe. =) LtPowers 21:48, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Do you have an example of something that belongs in the main namespace, that isn't a policy page, and that wouldn't make a category redundant? Though we should prob discuss this elsewhere  :) – cacahuate talk 21:17, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep I don't see any harm in keeping this page, and someone put so much hard work into that, I'd really feel bad deleting it. sertmann 16:33, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Map of Korea.jpg

(See also previous VFDs: one, two.)

Although the image does have a letter of permission, that letter only licenses itself under cc-by-sa-1.0, not the image! The letter only gives Paula permission to use the image - not WT, not anyone else - and it doesn't permit derivative works, all of which are requirements. - Dguillaime 15:20, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. I think the intent of the letter is clear, there may just be a bit of a language barrier :) I don't agree at all that it should have been uploaded a third (!!!) time without discussion, as I mentioned on Paula's talk page, but I think we should not drag this out, especially considering the pace at which WT country maps are being created.... this map will be irrelevant I'm sure by the end of the year – cacahuate talk 15:28, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
FWIW, it's now irrelevant. --Peter Talk 02:23, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
Irrelevant how? LtPowers 13:54, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
We don't need to keep the suspicious copyvio image with weird permission email, since we have WT style map for the country which created by Peter. -- Tatata 00:21, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:Ebla panoramic.jpg

  • Delete. Not useful in a travel guide – cacahuate talk 02:47, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Why so? I don't see anything wrong with it... except maybe the insane resolution (10000px!). Jpatokal 00:23, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
      • I'm with Cacahuate -- I don't see how you could use this image in a travel guide, given its odd shape. LtPowers 13:50, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
        • Just to be clear: Delete, as it's poorly stitched in addition to being oddly shaped and way too wide. LtPowers 13:54, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

July 2009

Image:NC regions.gif

  • Delete. Really nice map, but the uploader provides no indication that he created it himself. Some of the user's other uploads have already been deleted as copyvios, so I think we have to presume this one is too. User has also not edited either :en or shared since his first day on the site, back in April, not even to respond to concerns raised by Peter. LtPowers 11:23, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:Outer Banks- Ocracoke Beach.JPG

  • Delete. The uploader provides no indication that he took this photo himself. Some of the user's other uploads have already been deleted as copyvios, so I think we have to presume this one is too. User has also not edited either :en or shared since his first day on the site, back in April, not even to respond to concerns raised by Peter. LtPowers 11:23, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Image:Paradise Bay Eco Escape aerial.jpg

  • Delete Spam --GF 15:00, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

September 2009

Four images from User:Angelaptero3

  • Image:Ballgame.jpg
  • Image:Xcaret 022.jpg
  • Image:Swimwithdolphins.jpg
  • Image:Xcaretinlet.jpg
    • These are nice photos but there is evidence that at least two of them are copyright violations. The dolphins photo is very similar to this image, and TinEye turns up five matches for the "inlet" scene: [1], although they're all much smaller than the one Angelaptero3 uploaded. Regardless, though, even if the first three aren't copyvios they still violate our image policy since they contain recognizable depictions of individuals. The fourth does not, but it has the possible copyright issues. LtPowers 13:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:U-Bahn in Wien.png

License violation. This map is licensed under cc-by-nc-nd-1.0.[2]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 12:42, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Too bad, too; it'd be quite useful for us. LtPowers 21:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
    • Fortunately [3] this can substitute. Jpatokal 23:53, 9 September 2009 (EDT)


Uses google maps for data, could be redone with [4] data instead, but I'm not volunteering. sertmann 20:37, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Image:Uzbeki girl.jpg

reconcilable person, privacy rights --Rein N. 21:41, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete per nominator. NB: Her decoration made of USSR coins. ;-) -- Sergey kudryavtsev 03:58, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Kocani grb.gif

Out of scope; not useful for travel guides. LtPowers 16:37, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Image:Macedonia regions map1.png

Uploader was apparently confused; this map should have been uploaded over Image:Macedonia regions map.png. The SVG source was not updated, and attribution information was not maintained as required by the license. The addition of the city to the list of cities on en:Macedonia was also not discussed beforehand. LtPowers 16:37, 23 September 2009 (EDT)


Copyvio. This image is "All rights reserved".[5] -- Tatata 09:30, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Entebbe Kampala Route.jpg

No license, no source. LtPowers 21:01, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. Looks like a screenshot from Google Maps. Jpatokal 23:12, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

October 2009


No license, no source, recognizable individuals. LtPowers 10:59, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Map of Kilkenny City.jpg

Blatantly lifted from Google Maps. And on a featured OtBP article, too! LtPowers 09:19, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Kilkenny Castle Fountain.jpg

Recognizable people, which goes against our image policy if we want to be strict about it. Sadly, this is the image used on the English front page for Kilkenny's OtBP feature. LtPowers 09:19, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep The girl is looking away (and the visible 1/3rd of her face, is washed out by image compression, even in full size). The the Mom is not recognisable at all. sertmann 13:24, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
    • From Image policy: "A photo of the Taj Mahal is useful for travellers; a photo of your girlfriend in a funny hat standing in front of the Taj Mahal is not." While there are no funny hats involved here, I think the same principle applies. The question is whether or not the people in this photo are incidental to the photo. I don't believe that to be the case here; the photo looks to me to be of the people with the castle merely the setting. LtPowers 20:28, 15 October 2009 (EDT)


Copyvio from, and we wouldn't keep it even if it wasn't, since we have no use for interior photos of individual businesses. LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


Copyvio from, and we wouldn't keep it even if it wasn't, thanks to the drop shadow and the general uselessness of a photo of an empty dining room. LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Black Rock Harbor.jpg

Likely copyvio from (how nice of the uploaded to provide URLs for all these images). LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


OK, I can't prove this one's a copyvio, but given the uploader's track record, I'd bet money on it, especially since it came from BlogSpot. LtPowers 11:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. It's from this post, which doesn't seem like the same user and certainly has no licensing information. - Dguillaime 13:37, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:July course.jpg

License violation. This image is licensed under cc-by-nd-2.0.[6]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 20:18, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete -- sertmann 22:21, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


Another one from User:Bribabe1214. I've left the user a message. LtPowers 14:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)


Out of scope. LtPowers 14:23, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Tatata, could you comment, is this used in anywhere relevant (infobox or something?). sertmann 22:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
According to the Wikitraveler who uploaded this image, this woman is a famous poet who worked mostly in Meiji to Showa era in Japan (about 100 to 50 years ago), and her birthplace is designated as one of the municipal heritage. See the column at ja:富田林市#観る.
For your information, I am quite neutral about this VFD (just tell you the information abut this image and usage).--Shoestring 09:09, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Looks like it's used in an infobox, which generally contain encyclopedic content tangential to travel. That would seem to make the image relevant, if decorative, but our image policy doesn't cover such uses. LtPowers 13:35, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Yamatotakeru001.jpg and Image:Gyouki001.jpg

(rolling these two images together)

Japanese law allows derivative works of public art to be made, but only for non-commercial uses. See commons:COM:FOP#Japan. LtPowers 14:28, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Keep. The letter of the law states (in translation) that "reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies" (my emphasis) is prohibited. Wikitravel does not sell such copies, ergo, this is no problem. Whether somebody else downloads a picture off Shared and attempts to hawk copies is not our problem. Jpatokal 02:46, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep In any case, build in 1880, copyright expired. (50 years). sertmann 22:15, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
    • Can I ask how you know both statues were erected in 1880? LtPowers 22:20, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't, the categories got merged after I researched the Yamato Takeru statue. sertmann 13:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT)


Out of scope; we don't generally use montages. LtPowers 14:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete sertmann 22:28, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


Identifiable person. I'm not sure whether the fact that he's famous makes it more or less important that we delete the image. LtPowers 14:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)


Picture of non-notable hotel sertmann 16:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Singers Lianhuashan2.jpg

Recognizable people. LtPowers 13:45, 25 October 2009 (EDT)