It may occur from time to time that we delete an article by mistake -- that is, that the article doesn't actually meet the standards for deleting articles listed on the VFD page. In this case, a Wikitraveller should link to the page on this page, with an explanation of why the deletion wasn't in accordance with our deletion policy. Articles and images are still considered guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page. Otherwise, the page will stay deleted.
See also: votes for deletion
Please list new pages below.
:::Um, it is used by Bethlehem and (IMHO) represents a pretty darn good summary of what the town is about. Some strange bug (probably due to reuploading the file under the same name) prevents it from being listed as a link though. Jpatokal 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Anyway, while I still disagree with the reasoning above, at least there's some consensus ''against'' now and I'll bow to it gracefully. But before I shut up, y'all will have to pick a new image to replace Mr. Monk from here:
: [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/ http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/]
My favorites are [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Nativity_Priest.JPG this] and [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Souq_Kids.JPG this] but somehow I doubt those will pass privacy police scrutiny either. [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/MangerSq_Mosque.JPG This] is postcard-y but gives the wrong impression (nobody goes to Bethlehem for the mosques). [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/StCatherine_Statue.JPG This] is a nice picture but doesn't really say very much... [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Grotto_Entrance.JPG this] and [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Grotto_Nun.JPG this] are uglier but give some idea (and hey, the church is ugly too). Or maybe just [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Poster_Resistance.JPG this] or [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Souq_Meat.JPG that] for that warm and fuzzy "Welcome to Bethlehem!" feeling. Jpatokal 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
:OK, I think we can easily agree on this one: Elvis Sheik!! Seriously, I think some of the Old Town or Manger Square scenes would be good if you have some that aren't as politically charged. --Paul Richter 04:06, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
::Unfortunately the King was spotted not in Bethlehem, but in the legendary Elvis Diner on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway... a destination in itself, I might add. But "not politically charged" is a pretty tough call for an occupied war zone in these days of ''intifada'', the last time I visited (Apr 2003) I traveled by armored car. And the pics in the link above are all I have. Jpatokal 04:19, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
::I've never actually seen this article, so I don't know how great it was, but I came across a conversation on this article with someone asking us to keep it. I figured I'd throw it up here in case an error was made. It's not possible to see what it looked like prior deletion, right? Sapphire 02:58, 19 April 2006 (EDT) :::Nevermind. I didn't read Ryan's note. If there was nothing on it then void my asking for the "undeletion." Sapphire 03:00, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
Was not VFD'd, yet [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22Freiburg%20i.%20Br.%22 Google reports "about 1,320,000" hits], and was (and still is) linked to from Baden Wurttemberg. Valid abbreviation for Freiburg im Breisgau, should be a redirect to Freiburg. ~ 58.8.2.182 15:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Outcome: '''Recreated''' as Redirect to Freiburg --Nick 05:05, 29 February 2008 (EST)
This page was not VFD'd. It was deleted @ 01:38, 20 December 2007 and then Pereira (Colombia) was moved to Pereira @ 01:39, 20 December 2007. At the time of deletion it was a disambiguation page. I have no objection to it being undeleted as Pereira (disambiguation). ~ 203.144.143.4 01:30, 20 December 2007 (EST)
:: Yes, that's exactly what the VFU says. First the move needs to be undone, and then the deletion. ~ 61.7.183.208 03:57, 5 January 2008 (EST)
We need information on ferries around Mediterranean (or at least between the key destinations in Greece), and Ferries in the Mediterranean was the first attempt to gather such info that I can remember at Wikitravel.
Earlier we have removed an extlink to a third-party source of schedules and routes available for Greece alone (see Talk:Greece#ferry schedule and routes). But if we also don't allow such info to be gathered by Wikitravelers--and we don't have an ''official'' one-stop source for such info, it's quite strange for me.
I ''did'' travel around Greek islands, and it was really a nightmare to find any online source of information that give enough information even for my individual route--and yes, finally I turned to Lonely Planet (which helped a bit, but did not allow to complete my task).
It's really pity for me that I couldn't vote to keep it earlier, so I vote for undeletion.
VFD discussion can be found here: Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion/September_2007#List_of_ferries. --DenisYurkin 17:24, 2 February 2008 (EST)
: I've gone over the original VFD discussion and still have the same main concern. We do not need a useless list of contacts. : If you are however willing to put in the effort to turn this into a real ''travel topic'' then I'll definitely support an '''Undelete'''. I do think this can be useful provided that it does not try to be overly detailed, i.e. specifying the departure times of each and every ferry from each and every port is not a good idea since those are subject to frequent changes that will never be updated in WT. : You might also want do consider a rename if this is undeleted. ''Ferries in the Mediterranean'' invites people to turn it into an ugly long list, something like ''Travel the Mediterranean by Ferry'' suggest that there should be more to the article. --Nick 02:00, 7 February 2008 (EST)
Outcome: '''Undeleted''' --Nick 05:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)
:: I'm happy to see that the page I started a year ago, which was deleted, is revived again. -- Eiland 13:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm still not sure whether this should have been deleted (I nominated it), and I'm not sure exactly what to do with it. But I just noticed it's one of the nine "other destinations" on the country page for Norway. That gives me additional pause. Anyway, I'll just leave this vfu up here and see if anyone has any good ideas. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 02:10, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:Actually, I'm going to give a firm '''Undelete'''. Trollstigen, as I understand it, is a road leading through a fjord of the same name. We have plenty of other pages for fjords, and treat them as regions. I think we could convert this one pretty easily. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 02:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
All the above were deleted on or about 26 February 2009 by User:Peterfitzgerald with the comment ''copyvio''. While I applaude efforts to rid Wikitravel of spam, I think these deletions need discussion. The articles are probably valid as names (bar one on the basis of capitalisations) but are merely orphaned pages that are copyright violations. I thought we preferred to fix rather than delete such articles. An attention grabbing template is called :Template:Copyvio and articles could be tagged this way rather than being deleted on sight - unless there is a website take down law in effect that now requires us to take down copyright violations pre-emptively before the website needs to be taken down - which I understand is about to happen here in New Zealand.... We could at least replace the bad articles with empty templates. - Huttite 09:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)
:No need to go through process on this one; just "speedy undelete," remove the text that was there (it's all copyrighted), and integrate it into our geographical hierarchy. I deleted them in part to save time cleaning up the copyvios (going through each subsection and deleting text takes longer), and as an attention-getter for the user. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 09:33, 25 February 2009 (EST) ::Deleting them is an easy way to get rid of the copyright-violating text and excise it from the history. If someone wishes to recreate them with a template, I see no reason not to. LtPowers 10:45, 25 February 2009 (EST) ::: Albacete and Trujillo (Spain) have both been recreated by the original user, complete with all the copyright violating text, all over again. What policy says we should be deleting the specific edits containing copyright violations? Because if there isn't one, we should be restoring the origial edits too. Though if there is one then we should be deleting those edits consistently - which we are not doing at present. - Huttite 04:49, 28 February 2009 (EST) ::::I don't understand what you mean by "restoring the [original] edits". LtPowers 13:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)