__NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- generates a "+"-Tab so we can easyly add a new topic -->
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:
Deletion log
Votes for deletion/Archives - the VFD archives index page
Votes for undeletion
:Shared:Votes for deletion
Nominating
The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:
<nowiki>===Chicken===</nowiki>
<nowiki>* Delete. Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~</nowiki>
Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:
# 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.
# For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a <nowiki>{{vfd}}</nowiki> tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The <nowiki>{{vfd}}</nowiki> tag must be the very first thing in the article, '''right at the very top''', before everything else.
# 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 ("<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"). ''List one article or image per entry''.
# 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.
Commenting
All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:
<nowiki>===Chicken===</nowiki>
<nowiki>* '''Delete'''. Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)</nowiki>
<nowiki>* '''Keep'''. There is a town in Alaska called Chicken. ~~~~</nowiki>
When leaving comments:
# First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
# 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 ("<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>").
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.
Archiving
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.
<!-- Interlanguage links here so new nominations can be added at the bottom -->
<!-- Deletion discussions start here -->
January 2009
'''Redirect''' (but where?). The current article is spam and I was going to speedy delete it per Wikitravel:Bodies of water, but there are five articles that link to it, so I suspect a redirect would be more useful since some editors seem to think it is a valid article. I'm stuck on where to redirect to, however - Europe? Scandinavia? British Isles? -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:09, 31 January 2009 (EST)
*My personal opinion is that bodies of water should be disambiguation pages listing major destinations surrounding them. In some cases, such as Great Lakes, we can almost treat it like a region. LtPowers 16:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)
* The current disambiguation page seems like a good compromise. I wouldn't recommend that all bodies of water get disambiguation pages, but the fact that this one is frequently wiki-linked seems to indicate that some sort of page is called for. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Strong Delete'''. Keeping bodies of water is a slippery slope. There is no consensus on how to redirect them. No clear way to disambiguate them. Do we redirect to places that offer cruises, or to islands in them, We should only consider keeping this after a serious rework of our bodies of water policy, so we know where we are going and what we want these articles for. Great Lakes is not an exception to the existing rule, as it is a name of the region surrouding the bodies of water already. Redirecting the North Sea to the a high level or region doesn't help the traveler. --Inas 18:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
*It's not really a region in our hierarchy; it overlaps the actual regions Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Ontario. LtPowers 08:37, 2 February 2009 (EST)
'''Delete'''. What Inas said. Current policy doesn't allow anything else. Texugo 21:10, 1 February 2009 (EST)
:: Wikitravel:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting: "''The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete. Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected, but articles about restaurants, bars, hotels, and other such commercial establishments should be deleted rather than redirected, in order to curb touting.''". -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
:::I think the point here is "where would you even redirect it?" The North Sea borders four top-level European regions. Is it really even useful to redirect this to Europe as whole? Texugo 21:52, 1 February 2009 (EST)
'''Redirect''' to Europe#Regions. Perhaps that will one day help some confused person. And perhaps it might dissuade that confused person from creating the article again. It's a geographical location, so redirecting should be fine. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 01:14, 2 February 2009 (EST)
'''Keep''' as a disambiguation page. It should state that our policy is to not write articles about bodies of water but about the land instead and they could be looking for any of the countries in Europe#Regions that border onto the North Sea. This should discourage people writing about the North Sea itself. If people do then the page could be protected. - Huttite 03:57, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:OK - I have added a disamiguation style page - rough first cut just see how it might fly - I think it has potential, even if it is just lots of links. It could tell someone if you can get into a country via a North Sea port, for example. This is something you would not know unless you knew which article to read. The North Sea article now tells you what are the likely candidates for information. Perhaps this is a standard to adopt for all major bodies of water (Oceans and Seas) that do not currently exist. - Huttite 09:13, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:: IMO. It is of no value to the traveller. It hinders them. They can go to each of those countries, and find nothing about the North Sea. They would be much better off with the normal wiki search function, which would at least find articles that reference the north sea, rather than this disambig which points them multiple high level articles which don't. --Inas 17:53, 2 February 2009 (EST)
'''Keep''' per Huttite. LtPowers 08:37, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:::I think this is a good solution, and would work for other oceans for which a redirect simply would not work. I would, however, recommend disambiguating by continental section, rather than country (e.g., Scandinavia, Beneluxe, British & Irish Isles, etc.), because someone searching for a region as broad as the North Sea is looking for something broader than an individual country. Moreover, if we were to use this as a precedent for other oceans, it would be silly to have a Pacific Ocean disambiguation for every nation and territory that touches it. To Ian's point about the search function—travelers can still use the search function, rather than the "go" function if they choose to, so I think that shouldn't be too much of a concern. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 18:09, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:::: My point was if a disambig adds more value than the standard search, then lets do it. Lets point people at what they are looking for. But if the disambig detracts value from the search, and points them away from any reference to what they are looking for, we have to wonder why we are doing it. We are just wasting the travelers time. Lets face it, a person doing a search for the north sea, isn't going to be very far advanced once redirected to Europe#Regions or similar are they? They still have to search for what they are looking for. Unless all they were looking for was a geography lesson, and that isn't really what we are here for. --Inas 18:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)
I suggest we '''put this on hold''' and hold a discussion about creating new policy at Wikitravel talk:Bodies of water. If we were to start allowing disambiguation pages for bodies of water, I would really want to work out a system first-- criteria for when to disambiguate a body of water (versus when to redirect it, etc), criteria for what types of articles should be pointed to, how to deal with each type: rivers, bays, etc. I also think that if we were to start doing this, it would have some potential implications for other region-spanning features such as mountain ranges, deserts, and forests. That said, maybe even Wikitravel talk:Bodies of water is not an adequate place for this discussion, but the point is: This is a precedent-setting matter, and the Votes for deletion page is not really the place to pave new policies. Texugo 19:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)
February 2009
I cannot decide whether to '''Delete''' or '''Disambiguate''' this body of water. I have proposed it here because the policy says we don't normally create such articles (but sometimes we do!) So I want to get a feel for where the tide of opinion is running on this article and perhaps provoke discussion about these sorts of articles generally. Perhaps the policy is too indecisive. - Huttite 11:14, 14 February 2009 (EST)
'''Weak don't redirect''' I still maintain that the purpose of a disambiguation or redirection is to point somebody in the direction of where they might find the information they are looking for. If we can define what the user is looking for, and we have that information located somewhere else, then a redirect or a disambiguation makes perfect sense, and we should just do it as a matter of course. When either of these factors is missing - when it isn't at all clear what the user is looking for, or that information isn't located in a few fixed places in the guide, we are not helping anyone with a redirect or disambiguation. Redirecting to a higher level region isn't useful if it makes no mention of the search term, as the user is still left with nowhere to go. We are better off just letting it fall back to the default search, where are least the user will be presented with a listing of all articles that match their search, in relevance order. In this case the text of this article it seems to more resemble a travel topic for navigating the waterway. Again, we could end up with a article for how to navigate most navigable waterways, and that may be a valuable thing, but at the moment that fits more within our travel topic hierarchy then it does within our destination hierarchy. --Inas 18:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)
'''Hold''' We apparently really need to root out a policy on this, since alot of us are starting to second guess the current one. (see discussion for North Sea above). --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:Image:Double sun Sunset icebergs at Baffin Bay.jpg
There is no indication that the uploader took this photo, and the site it came from does not indicate that it is CC-SA licensed. Additionally, images should be uploaded to shared, not English Wikitravel, as indicated by the giant red box on the upload page.
'''<strike>Delete</strike>Keep'''. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:35, 25 February 2009 (EST) UPDATE: the situation was resolved, so looks like the image is good to keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)
'''Keep''' I am Mila Zinkova and I took this photo, but honestly I do not really care what you do with this--Mila 11:37, 25 February 2009 (EST)
*Hi, Mila. You've uploaded some really nice pictures! Since you have previously published these photos on the web, it can be hard to tell sometimes whether something was just swiped without permission or not. =) It might help if you were to put a notice on your web page where the photos are found that says "these images are licensed CC-by-sa 3.0" with a link to [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/] -- or even just a note that says "I am User:Ushlavtuman on Wikitravel". Either one of those would prevent similar discussions in the future. =) Thanks for your contributions. LtPowers 18:52, 25 February 2009 (EST)
::Thank you.--Mila 10:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
'''Keep'''. Mila is engaged in the discussion, and any further issues can be resolved by directly. --Inas 18:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)
'''Move to shared''' - Texugo 00:16, 27 February 2009 (EST)
'''Keep/Moved to shared''' I'm not doing it, but if someone else wants too... :) --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Body of water and presumably not an article. Should be merged and redirected somewhere... but where? Jpatokal 00:53, 26 February 2009 (EST)
It will need to be a disambiguation page, per :Wikipedia:Rio Negro. There are at least three bodies of water with that name in South America alone, plus actual communities in Brazil and in Guatemala. LtPowers 09:08, 26 February 2009 (EST)
'''Hold''' We need to root out a new consensus on this, see North sea discussion --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
'''Delete'''. Between the miscapitalization and the disamb issue, there's no reason to keep this one around until we have an actual disamb page. Different set of issues than what's in the North Sea situation. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:22, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. Pashley 04:53, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
March 2009
'''Delete''' this page was started by an ananymous user in spanish. Then all content was remowed. ViMy 17:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)
'''Keep'''; it is a real place, or rather several according to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Piedras]. Probably needs to be a disambig page here too. Pashley 20:00, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Yes I know. There is one in Puerto Rico, and two in South America. But the question are, will we get articles for this places? I searched spanish Wikitravel, and found no articles. But of course a Disambig-page is at least a start... ViMy 14:00, 2 March 2009 (EST)
'''Keep'''; Even a disambiguation page is more useful than the current article. The fact that someone started it suggests we might get articles, sometime in the future. Even if we don't, a gap has at least been identified. - Huttite 07:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete''' or '''Merge'''. Nordkapp is the name of the municipality in witch North Cape is. Nordkapp is also the norwegian name for North Cape. North Cape is an atraction and as so should not have it's own article in Wikitravel. I think this articles could be merged with Honningsvag, witch is a small town just south of North Cape. The Mageroya-article might just be deleted, not sure if this is a likely search. ViMy 13:52, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Nordkapp is a destination in it's own right, and a pretty popular one too, so i don't think we should merge with Honingsvag. Never heard the term Mageroya before, but someone obviously has so it can't really hurt just to '''Merge''' all of them. --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 13:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
I know... It's known all over Europe as the northenmost point of the continent. Shuld we '''merge''' all into North Cape? Another thing you can't sleep at North Cape... But in Honningsvag or some of the vilages south of the cape. But of course North Cape is the name everyone know. ViMy 14:18, 2 March 2009 (EST)
'''Merge and redirect''' all to Nordkapp, which is (I think) the most common name. "North Cape" is ambiguous, but there's only one Nordkapp. Jpatokal 23:30, 2 March 2009 (EST)
'''Keep Separate''' - To me it sounds like Nordkapp is a destination on the island of Mageroya and you could merge those two if there was on other places on the island. However, North Cape is a different case entirely as it is the name of a tourist destination/attraction in Northland, on the North Island of New Zealand - which means that North Cape should be a disambiguation page. - Huttite 02:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
* AFAIK there's nothing at all on Mageroya aside from Nordkapp. Jpatokal 02:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Nordkapp is a destination on Mageroya. But you can't sleep there but in Honningsvag. The Island is not so big. So I think everything could be keept in one article. Should North Cape be a disambig-page? ViMy 07:11, 7 March 2009 (EST)
: hmmmm, this one is tricky, my take on this would be to redirect Mageroya as a region to Nordkapp, as that is the more likely search term, and then make Honningvag and Nordkapp destinations in Finnmark rather than on Mageroya. --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 13:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Sounds OK to me. But I'm not sure if we should have two seperate articles for Nordkapp and Honningsvag. ViMy 10:36, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Hmm you might be right, so... which one to choose? since you're the Norwegian, I'm willing to take your advice :) --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 10:27, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
::::Technicaly Honningsvag is the town, and Nordkapp an atraction outside of the town. But '''Nordkapp''' is a internationaly recognized destination, so I think we should choose this. The reason why I'm sceptical to two articles, is that I think we could got one describing the atraction and another one describing where to sleep.
: I'd say keep Mageroya, include the Nordkapp and Honningsvag information in that article and make both of those redirects to it. It seems to me the island, rather than the town, is the destination.
: North Cape is a separate problem, probably needs to be a disambig page. Pashley 05:43, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
A small attraction which could easily be covered in the ''Get out'' section of Karakorin.
'''Merge and delete''' - Texugo 06:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
'''Merege and Redirect'''. No real overhead is a redirect is there? If it is not promotion, or spam? --Inas 20:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
:I don't see the point in allowing redirects for misspelled or improperly capitalized titles, unless the title is frequently misspelled. Texugo 07:51, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Neither do I. Which part do you consider misspelled or improperly capitalised? A quick google search on Bilge Khaan certainly reveals a fair variation in spelling. --inas 21:07, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
'''Merge & redirect'''. There is no reason ''to'' delete redirects (that aren't spam), and it's possible that they could positively affect our SEO. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 12:49, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
An isolated ruin with no facilities.
'''Redirect''' somewhere - Texugo 06:19, 5 March 2009 (EST)
'''Merge''' with Kharakhorin too! - Huttite 07:24, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Copyvio from [http://www.sequatours.com/birdwatchingtour.htm], no content otherwise. Redirection to Algarve is another option. - Dguillaime 20:25, 6 March 2009 (EST)
'''Keep''' - Copyright Violation is not sufficient reason to delete a page. Tag it as a copyright violation and/or redirect to the page where the attraction is best listed if it cannot become an article. Huttite 09:29, 7 March 2009 (EST)
'''Delete'''. We can't keep copyright-violating text in the history of an article. Better to delete it outright, and if a redirect is desired, one can be created afterward. LtPowers 15:49, 7 March 2009 (EST)
:: Policy discussion moved to Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy#Copyvios in article history''
'''Wipe and redirect''' to Algarve, unless someone wants to argue it deserve an article of its own. There are plenty of instances where copyvio text has been inserted into an existing article along with our original content, and it's been dealt with by deleting the copyvio text. The history is there to show we fulfilled our obligations. Seriously, think through the consequences here. As a vandal, I could nuke Paris by dropping copyvio text into the second paragraph. Then Wikitravel would have to delete the entire history of the article to get rid of that copyvio. After it was recreated, the entire valid revision history (and contributors) would be lost. Nose, spite, face, etc. On the other hand, we would need the contributor to explicitly say he or she had rights to re-license that text. We absolutely should not assume they did. Gorilla Jones 13:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Policy discussion moved to Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy#Copyvios in article history''
'''Keep''', either as an article or redirect if needed. Copyright text and images are removed, we've never wiped history before for that. I also removed a line that was confusing in the deletion policy – <font color="green">cacahuate</font> <sup><small><font color="blue">talk</font></small></sup> 16:09, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirect''' to either Ria Formosa or Algarve—with very limited knowledge, I would recommend the latter. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 22:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete!''' The title is wrong, should be Rio Formosa. All of the text is a copyvio. Nuke it. Pashley 09:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
* '''Spelling mistakes''' should be redirected not deleted. - Huttite 05:02, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
Tagged as an itinerary but written (scantily) like a Wikipedia article about only the Danish portion of the road. As we don't write articles about highways except for special cases like the Dalton Highway and Route 66, I'm going to have to vote to
'''Delete''' - Texugo 07:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Keep''', this article could be part of the Routes Expedition. But it has to be rewritten, and expanded to cover it's entire length. As it is now it is more or less a WP article. ViMy 08:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
:The articles-about-random-highways aspect of that expedition has not been ratified by any kind of consensus and should not be pursued until the community deems it necessary. Articles about highways are, by current policy, limited to special cases only. Texugo 09:03, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
: Is this a special case, then? Finland to Italy sounds like an interesting trip. Do people actually set out to make that journey? If so, then an article on the whole route would be a valid itinerary. Pashley 11:24, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete''' All the time, but they don't necessarily follow that route. Outside Scandinavia and Benelux where they are well integrated in the national system, European routes are quite arbitrary, and poorly signposted. The situation is improving though, but not to a point where it merits articles outside the two regions above. E39 is a much better example of an itinerary that could potentially be useful. --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 11:49, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
: Then it would be OK make an article about E6, witch runs Trelleborg-Kirkenes. At least in Norway E6 is rather "famous". Not saying that I will make such an article... ViMy 10:43, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
User talk:Scs
I realize that we don't really have a policy on this, and a generally very permissive on what people put up on their userspace, but this just looks like a totally irrelevant google ranking ploy, so I'm gonna try and put this up for deletion anyway. --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 17:13, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
<strike>'''Keep'''</strike>. We do have a (rough) policy: Wikitravel_talk:User_page_help#Touting_on_Userpages. If it were linkspam, blanking might be appropriate, but there aren't even any links. I'd support a more strict policy on policing touting in userspace, but that's better discussed in that thread. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 21:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Well, can I draw up the [http://paratechcoating.co.uk/aboutus.php copyright violation] card instead then? It very explicitly states "Copyright c2002-2009 Para Tech Coating UK Limited. All rights reserved." down at the bottom of the page. --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 21:24, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
:::'''Speedy delete'''. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 21:43, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. I'm essentially just repeating that I don't think the original policy discussion at the link Peter highlights above went as far as to have consensus to permit content that could never in any interpretation or the widest possible scope ever ever contribute to building a successful travel guide. Since I don't see this consensus was ever reached, I think we should rely on our Goals and Non-Goals to guide us here. If the page doesn't benefit the development of a travel guide, in the widest possible sense, it should be deleted according to non-goal 4 and 6. Even if we accept that the discussion at Wikitravel_talk:User_page_help#Touting_on_Userpages is valid policy, and does apply to this page, it should still be deleted, as the recommendation there that contact with the user is attempted has been tried in this case, and failed. --Inas 21:25, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think the discussion pretty clearly held up the long-standing practice that we should not censor userspace, with a few exceptions noted in the discussion. In particular, no one objected to Ravikiran's guidelines, and despite being pretty much the only dissenter, I agreed to them as well. In any rate, if there is disagreement about what our policy is, I think we should hash that out in discussion, try to reach a consensus, and this time actually write it into policy (I sure wish I had done that before...), rather than set precedents via vfds. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 21:43, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Although I of course agree we should not venture too far down the discussion path here. I must say I agree with the consensus at Wikitravel_talk:User_page_help#Touting_on_Userpages, and think this article is a clear candidate for deletion following those guideliness. Personally I don't really see the need to revisit that discussion. The consensus described there, simply is:
::: * '''Okay if travel related.'''
::: * '''Okay if it will not harm Wikitravel's reputation or image'''
::: I see these guidelines as well thought out and reasonable. However, nowhere can I see was the consensus ever reached to not touch user pages which are completely outside of any possible scope for a travel guide. This is an article about ''parylene coating''. It is completely inconsistent with our goals, and assuming the previous consensus is valid policy, it is completely inconsistent with that as well. --Inas 22:48, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Keep''' but blank the page since it has nothing to do with travel and is a copyright violation. It would be quite OK for the user to link to the company either on his personal page or the talk page, and the note we leave after blanking the page should say that. However, the current text does not belong here for two reasons. It has nothing to do with travel and it is a copyright violation. In my view, either would be adequate grounds for removing the text. However, I see no grounds at all for deleting the page. Pashley 01:34, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
: Just to be clear, you would like to leave this guy a note, to tell him we have blanked his page (but not deleted it), because it was about some technology to coat computer chips with some sort of plastic, and not about travel. But you would like the note to say that he is welcome to set up a home page here, on wikitravel, a travel site, making free travel guides, with links to another site telling people how to coat computer chips with plastic? Really? Sometimes I think in a focus on openness we lose track of our goals. Who will volunteer to write the Wikitravel:Welcome, Google rank spammer page. --Inas 05:09, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
::Actually, that page sounds potentially fun. But I think the main thing is to clearly draw lines to reassure contributors that they do have control over their userspace, if nothing else. Personally, I'd draw the line between anyone who has made non-spam edits and exclusive spammers, but that's a policy change and beyond the scope of the vfd. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 05:31, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Good point, and this bozo's made only one edit ever. I'd support that policy change. Pashley 21:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Recent policy discussion on this topic reached a consensus several weeks ago, with no outstanding objections. '''Deleted''' per "non-contributing user pages" policy. - Dguillaime 21:43, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
This seems to be no real place. ViMy 08:27, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Seems like it is a destination. There are some grottos in Lebanon called Jeita. ViMy 19:12, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:An attraction, not an article. What is the nearest city? Texugo 19:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:: We don't have a lot of Lebanese cities, but it's 15 kilometres outside Beirut, so I guess that can count as suburbs. --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 20:07, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Keep''' - It could be a '''park''' article, and I think that 15km makes it a sufficiently remote attraction that it warrants its own article. Otherwise a disproportionately large amount of text might be devoted to it somewhere else. Better it is contained in the current article in that case. It is not doing any harm where it is. Anyway, policy is to merge and redirect, not delete, this sort of attraction. - Huttite 05:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
According to WP, the entrance to this grottos is in the town of Jeita. And the grottos is a major atraction. A city article? ViMy 09:33, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
Stalybridge
A town in the borough of Tameside, which currently redirects to Manchester. Created by an anonymous user probably to promote the apartment company listed in the ''Sleep'' section, and I can't get the link they left to load.
'''Redirect''' to Manchester? Texugo 11:35, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirected'''. - Dguillaime 21:46, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Vfd tag added in January, but not nominated here. I lean '''redirect'' to Lantau, but I am unfamiliar with this area. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 02:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
: It's been ages since I was in HK last, but if it's anything like 2003 - merging with Lantau is probably in order. --Stefan (sertmann) <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 02:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Keep'''. Definately no justification for deletion, it doesn't even come close to being against any policies. Whether it should be merged with Lantau as part of an overall region division for Hong Kong isn't really a discussion for here, but for Talk:Hong Kong and Talk:Lantau. Personally, I think it merits its own article, as it is a distinct destination, with its own methods of getting in, and you can certainly sleep there. You could certainly go there, and nowhere else on Lantau, but as I say, that isn't a discussion for here. --Inas 04:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
'''Keep'''. :WikiPedia:Discovery Bay, California is where my oldest brother lives. Maybe a disamig? -- Colin 23:59, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Entry in Dutch, not English. --Rein N. 12:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
:'''Keep''' the article, remove Dutch text. It seems to be a real place [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinsenbeek wikipedia] Someone who knows the area can add English text or, if the place is too small & unimportant, make it a redirect to a region article. Pashley 21:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
:: '''Redirect''' to Breda, if someone wants to keep it, because Prinsenbeek is added to the city of Breda since 1997. On wikipedia only en and nl have an article on it --Rein N. 23:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
:'''Redirected'''. - Dguillaime 21:47, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
April 2009
I don't know anything about the location, but it is listed as a single monastery, which I don't believe Wikitravel covers. There is no city page for the city that it is listed as being in/near. ChubbyWimbus 09:17, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
: '''Um'''. We just need to find somewhere to put the content. --Inas 02:18, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
: '''Keep'''. Huh? Been There. Written it :) It is a nice place and definitely a great attraction. Great nature, architecture, history, beer :) I do not see why it should be deleted. Of course, add content - make it a part of a larger article about the surrounding park or may be some close city. I have just described what I have seen and it is definitely worth to be in the guide. Send some explorers there! :) Kyknos 09:02, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
::Hi, Kyknos. I think this monastery is probably better suited as an attraction listing within a destination article, rather than having an article of its own. Wikitravel:What is an article? explains our guidelines on this subject. LtPowers 09:57, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I completely agree, but within what destination? I do not know the area. There is a big park around which seems interesting on the maps and a bunch of small cities I do not know anything about. So I think it should stay as it is until someone can add more content (and rename article as needed). Kyknos 10:04, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
::::Do you have a pamphlet or something from this monastery that gives an address? That might be the easiest way to figure out where to place it. ChubbyWimbus 10:23, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::No, but according do the German Wikipedia (if I understand it correctly), Weltenburg is a district of nearby town Kelheim - but we have no content for it now. May be someone with better German should look at it. Kyknos 18:26, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
May 2009
A type of Japanese pub, should be merged into Japan. Jpatokal 22:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Merge & redirect'''. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 04:33, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
Manchester/Moss_Side
Manchester/Hulme
Manchester/Sportcity
'''Delete:''' Was tagged for merge. Useful text was merged into Manchester/South and Manchester/North. Pages have no linking pages, so not worth redirecting. Nrms Nrms 07:55, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirect''' all three of these per Wikitravel:Deletion_policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 08:32, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirect'''. Odd that it wouldn't be worth redirecting, but is worth starting a deletion discussion. Plus a merge requires us to keep the original page's history around for attribution purposes. LtPowers 09:08, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
:OK, no problem with a redirect. My only worry with the redirecting over deleting is that you end up being sent through 101 redirections to get somewhere, which could get a little messy! But that's a policy discussion for another day perhaps.
:Do we still need to let the 14 day period pass, or are you happy for me just to go ahead and do the redirects and then archive these vfds? Nrms 10:06, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::Sure, you can just speedy these. Redirection shouldn't occur more than once, since we should avoid creating any double redirects—just be sure to update the links to the now defunct pages to point to the new ones. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 16:17, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirected:''' Also changed associated redirects on other Old Trafford pages to stop the double redirections. LtPowers, only reason I say not worth redirecting was the lack of pages that linked into them (i.e. just the Manchester talk page). Nrms 23:12, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
*I know; I just thought it was odd, since redirecting them is easier than creating a deletion discussion and then deleting them. LtPowers 08:35, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
I am not exactly recommending for deletion, but this Ikeda is now Miyoshi in Tokushima. There are other Ikeda cities, though, so I think after the content is moved to Miyoshi, the page should become Ikeda (Osaka) or Ikeda (Fukui). It's a little confusing now, because Wikitravel's Ikeda is non-existant, but there are ''real'' Ikeda cities elsewhere. Also, the map on the Tokushima page would need to be updated...
: '''Oppose'''. Ikeda is only Miyoshi in the feverish imaginations of Japanese bureaucrats, but by any other standard it's still a separate town. Hell, in theory, all of the Iya Valley — one of the least populated places in all Japan — is a part of Miyoshi "city"! Jpatokal 00:03, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
::I had created the Miyoshi page in case it was agreed to merge, but if others agree that it shouldn't be placed there, then should the Miyoshi page be nominated for deletion? Overlap would seem counterproductive... Also, perhaps a disambiguation page is needed, since there are at least two other cities by the same name. ChubbyWimbus 08:33, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Nah, just make it into a redirect pointing into the components we've split it into, which would be Ikeda, Iya Valley, and Oboke and Koboke.
::::And yes, the current Ikeda should be made into Ikeda (Tokushima) and the original Ikeda disambigged. Jpatokal 11:50, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::I made the disambiguation page and linked all the links to Ikeda from Tokushima to the new Ikeda (Tokushima) link. I think I did it correctly, but feel free to check, since it's my first disambiguation creation. ChubbyWimbus 12:17, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
::::::Looking good, but next time, please move the original article to the new name instead of just copying so that the edit history comes along. Jpatokal 13:01, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
I do appologize if this is annoying (since I also nominted Ikeda), but regardless of what is decided with Ikeda, this one seems completely impractical/useless as a name for this city/site. I suggest making this into an Oda page, because the mine areas that you can tour are in Oda city, and it would allow people to add other things to do in the city, if there are any. Otherwise, making it into an attraction page (Iwami Ginzan) would at least make it a real location. My only hesitation with doing that is that if someone created an Oda page, there may not be much else to add other than Iwami Ginzan. ChubbyWimbus 10:53, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
Kochi (Kerala)
'''Delete:''' duplication of Cochin, maybe copied from Cochin. -- Tatata 09:13, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
::Shouldn't it be '''redirected''' then? ChubbyWimbus 09:52, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Yes, it should be '''redirected'''. Pashley 01:39, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
:Image:HorsleyHillsMap.JPG
Subject of photo is almost certainly copyrighted, but I don't understand the area of copyright law very well pertaining to partial photographs of copyrighted materials. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 00:28, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
: '''Delete'''. Part or all, it's faithful reproduction and thus a copyvio. Jpatokal 00:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
: '''Delete'''. I think it's pretty clearly a copyvio too. Texugo 01:23, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
: '''Deleted''' after two weeks. - Dguillaime 21:48, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
This is the name of a temple in Shinonsen, Hyogo. It is already mentioned in the Meditation in Japan page. No travel page links to it. Unless someone would rather redirect it (after creating a page for the city), there seems to be no reason to keep this. ChubbyWimbus 05:41, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
: Well, it's a destination or part of one, so it should either be turned into a full-fledged article or merged into the one it belongs to. Jpatokal 07:48, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
La Compania church
Not a destination.2old 10:31, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Speedy redirected''' to Quito. All text was copyvio. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 11:06, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete''' or '''blank page'''. In the begining of the article it is stated that the content is copyrighted. Seems to be no copyvio tough. ViMy 18:55, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
: '''Delete'''. Text is identical to [http://mlguide.blogspot.com/2009/01/puertecitos-hot-springs.html], except that the user here has replaced the original copyright notice with one of his own! The "all rights reserved" is a nice touch. Given that, I'm more than a little suspicious about :Image:EntrancetoHotSprings.JPG? as well. - Dguillaime 17:57, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
Just a pizza ad ChubbyWimbus 13:50, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
:'''Keep'''. It's a real place (an outer suburb of Melbourne, Australia), so I gave it a template; in a day or two after the anon user's done playing around, it should be easy to trim out the silliness and return it to a sparse, but valid, small city article. - Dguillaime 17:50, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
:: I did the trimming. May be merged one day, but seems alright for now. --inas 19:25, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
No longer useful, just info that should be in/moved to Beijing article.AHeneen 14:42, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
: '''Delete text, and redirect to Bejing'''. The article doesn't appear that well developed to start with, and we should leave Wikipedia to write the history books. --Inas 17:30, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
User:Kate Gosselin nude
'''delete''' - Not a user page! Bad taste has no place here. Rein N. 07:45, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
: Speedy deleted this and a similar one. Gorilla Jones 09:57, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
Images by User:Prabukanth
All appear to be copyvio'd — along with the text from Tiruchendur — from [http://www.chendurresidency.com/tourism.htm here]. (And largely useless as well.) Gorilla Jones 02:27, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. I speedied his uploads on Shared yesterday as well. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 11:27, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Outcome: Speedy deleted.''' I went ahead and speedied these per :shared:User talk:Prabukanth. I left him that message the day before he uploaded these, so presumably he uploaded them here to avoid deletion there. The fact that he uploaded them post-removal of any link to :en:special:upload makes this decision even more straightforward imo. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 20:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Edmonton/Southwest
This district no longer exists, so I see no reason for it to stay here. <font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font> <sup><small><font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font></small></sup> 18:00, 24 May 2009 (EDT).
'''Redirect''' to Edmonton/South, just like any other routine merge. A number of things still link there, not least of which is the Edmonton article itself. - Dguillaime 18:10, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirect''' to maintain attribution history. LtPowers 22:00, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirect''', obviously, although I wonder why it's not an issue that this article came to no longer exist with no prior discussion — even this guy waited longer. Gorilla Jones 23:52, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
::Merging some of the more empty district articles (generally) was suggested by LtPowers and this specific merge was suggested by PerryPlanet and implemented (albeit rapidly) by Edmontonenthusiast so it's not like there has been no community input. I've made more drastic districting changes to the bare districts of other cities without anyone so much as noticing. Texugo 00:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirect''' to Edmonton/South. Texugo 00:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Wikitravel talk:Travel topic status/
This should be a speedy delete ChubbyWimbus 09:44, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
: Done. Gorilla Jones 10:29, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Kanmon_Straits
Per Wikitravel:Bodies of water. There's no content here that doesn't also belong in Kitakyushu or Shimonoseki (and their respective prefecture articles). Gorilla Jones 15:43, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
: Turn into to disambig pointing to the appropriate places. Jpatokal 23:32, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
This is a townsquare in Ghent, Belgium. I have added the relevant information into Ghent's site, so there is no reason to keep this. Otherwise, we might as well start creating new pages for streets, houses, rooms, etc. Sougato 10:25, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Redirect''' to Ghent ChubbyWimbus 10:43, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
User:Edmontonenthusiast/The real Peter Talk Page
Well I know that this isn't really what the vfd is really for, but I definitely think it deserves a vfd I guess. There is no reason to really have this anymore on Wikitravel and to me it's a burden to the site. It'd be nice if it was gone. These issues seem to be resolved, and instead of wasting space on silly arguements, lets use it for excellent travel guides. To me it's really stupid keeping it here and there isn't a reason to keep it. If you think there is then I probably don't know it so please say. Let's just move on =). <font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font> <sup><small><font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font></small></sup> 19:01, 27 May 2009 (EDT).
: '''Deleted'''. Pages within a user's sandbox don't need to go through the VFD process if the VFD is requested by that user. Gorilla Jones 19:05, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete''' - While I am all in favour of publicising the various emergency ''telephone'' numbers in various countries, the best place to do this is in the specific '''Stay safe''' sections of individual destination articles. I do not believe we need a single page that is a telephone directory for all the emergency services in the world. It is not likely you are going to need to call them all at one time. You might need to know the national emergency number(s) for all the emergency service in one country or most likely the local numbers and physical addresses for each emergency service for a destination. That means list in each destination article, not on a common page. Is there any policy about this topic? -- Huttite 07:28, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
According to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y,_Alaska], Y (Alaska) is just the name of a census area, so it's not a real city. ChubbyWimbus 12:23, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
:As we define "city", it might be. CDPs are usually populated places that are not officially incorporated but have a legitimate name. It may very well be the best name for that particular community. LtPowers 12:52, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
:: I think this is a time where we should look to the old faithful, ''Can you sleep there'', for guidance. We don't have an article for every crossroads on the map applies even where there are few roads, and where they may not even cross. --inas 00:23, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:::I agree. Wikipedia says, though, "Many residents are self-employed in a variety of small businesses, including lodging, guiding and charter services." That's indicative that an article could probably be written. LtPowers 09:33, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Three images
:Image:YorkMinster Owl.jpg
:Image:York Viking Centre.jpg
:Image:York Walls.jpg
These images have been moved from en: to shared: and are now available for all language versions under their original file names. They do not need to be stored in two different project areas. Riggwelter 12:21, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
*'''Speedied''' -- duplicates like this can be nuked instantly as long as the name is the same on Shared (or, if different, you've fixed all links). Jpatokal 02:58, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
:Image:Pumpk_sales.jpg
No model release from either of these identifiable fellows. Gorilla Jones 15:35, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. - Dguillaime 21:56, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
June 2009
Probably shouldn't have been an article to start with, since it appears to have been a private enterprise. Recent edits also say that it's been closed, which [http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/coromandel-mp-slams-sustainable-living-project-2712124 this news article] supports. - Dguillaime 18:19, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
Oil Painting - Creating a Masterpiece
'''delete''' very OT -- --Rein N. 05:29, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
'''Speedy deleted''', linkspam. --Peter <small><sup>Talk</sup></small> 06:17, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Hoofdpagina
'''Delete''' -- Redirect to Main Page. Correctly translated from Dutch, but do we need it? -- --Rein N. 06:42, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. I don't think we do. Why ''does'' :en get these occasional bits of inexplicable Dutch, anyhow? - Dguillaime 21:56, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
How to Get Started in Portrait Painting
'''delete''' very OT, again. Like 'Oil Painting - Creating a Masterpiece" above -- --Rein N. 10:02, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Andara_Resort_Villas
'''delete''' Just an adverstisement for a hotel in Phuket jan 07:16, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
: '''Speedy deleted''', --inas 07:29, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Talk:Rome/
'''delete''' --Russian spammer? ---- --Rein N. 10:40, 3 June 2009 (EDT)