Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2009

Add links
From Wikivoyage

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in October 2009. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/September 2009 or Project:Votes for deletion/November 2009 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Please see the discussion which began above under #Chinatown.

  • Delete - Ridiculous. Embarrassing. (WT-en) Texugo 23:43, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete - Indeed --(WT-en) inas 23:50, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete - I think I already layed out my reasons in the Chinatown discussion. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:04, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete, as above. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:50, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete, for the sole reason that it looks silly. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:59, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete - Nonsense. --(WT-en) Jtesla16 07:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete - no wait, I'm gonna ad every single conceivable major city we have on wikivoyage, and a few extra to the list... --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:43, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. If our articles were titled Downtown (Pittsburgh) instead of Pittsburgh/Downtown, would the need for this page be clearer? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:39, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
I think the issue is that "downtown" is part of most cities, and the destination is still Pittsburgh. It's not the same as a redirecting the Taj Mahal to Agra. "Downtown" is quite an abstract sort of destination; typically just the biggest concentration of shops, theaters, bars, etc. in a city/town. If someone is planning a trip to Pittsburgh, I imagine it would lead them to search for Pittsburgh. I just can't fathom that a traveller would simply want to go "downtown" without already knowing the city they will be in or travel to. If you wanted to go "downtown", would you really look over this list and say to yourself: Pittsburgh, Cairo, or Bangkok? It's just too farfetched to imagine that someone would say "I'm going downtown." and then hop on a plane to Cairo. I am curious to know what situation you think someone could use this for? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
I just don't like to assume something has no use, when it's doing little harm and fits our guidelines. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:11, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
The district "Downtown" makes no sense without the Pittsburgh. Downtown is a generic name for a city centre, and we should not be attempting to disambiguate it to a geography. Downtown, City, Town, CBD, are all generic names for the central area of cities, and they make no sense without the location qualifier. --(WT-en) inas 19:09, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. No value. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 14:22, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Heh, I added to the list way back when. Hoo, that's embarasing... I see no point in it, especially with more and more cities getting divided up into districts. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 16:55, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. Really, I don't see what the big deal is. It's just a disambiguation page, though not complete I don't think it should just be outright eliminated.
  • Delete. This is clearly too broad a term to merit its own article, and it serves no use to the traveler. ChubbyWimbus states the case quite well above. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:10, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Too broad -- most every place has a downtown. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:17, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 08:31, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:57, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

An attraction, not an article.

  • Merge with the pre-existing listing on the Wayanad page. (WT-en) Texugo 09:31, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect A redirect may discourage people from recreating the article, but no strong feelings on this. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 15:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Wayanad. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:49, 13 October 2009 (EDT)


Presumably should be merged into Murcia (region)? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:13, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Merge - as suggested by Jani, based on the policy on bodies of water. (WT-en) Tarr3n

Outcome: Redirected --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:16, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

If this is a real destination, it should be redirected to simply Rhino Camp and then delete this page. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:50, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged and deleted --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:22, 26 October 2009 (EDT)


Did you know that portable CD players let you listen to CDs that you buy while you're traveling? That books are a great source of entertainment while traveling? This travel topic stub, created and last expanded in July '08, has that wisdom and more. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:50, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete Redirect per Inas. No useful content, abandoned travel topic, which probably couldn't sustain a good article even with attention. I can't think of any good redirects (Project:Attraction listings would be a bit of a stretch). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:10, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge and Redirect to Packing list. Good idea to bear remember that book and mp3 player when packing. Would only see the entire article taking up one line there, though. Happy to do the hacking. --(WT-en) inas 00:13, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete I think the title "Amusements" is too ambiguous to make it a redirect. "Amusements" doesn't bring to mind "packing list" in my opinion. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:35, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
The info currently in the article will currently fit in Packing list, but you may be right that the travel topic name itself cannot be redeemed. Let me have a go at the merge/redirect, just to preserve the info, and then see what you think. --(WT-en) inas 17:01, 29 July 2009 (EDT)
For me it seems more appropriate to redirect to Project:Where to stick it? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:35, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
A redirect from the main namespace to the Wikivoyage namespace? The cheat shortcuts we have are bad enough at the moment, but we shouldn't redirect travel topics that way. --(WT-en) inas 18:58, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
All the info is relocated. If anybody finds the small stub of a redirect offensive, speak again. I admit it isn't the best of redirect names, but to keep our history, acknowledgements, etc in place, I think it is best that the redirect points where the info went. --(WT-en) inas 00:07, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
With both of these redirects, I definitely see how it can fit into them once they are suggested, but I am still wondering if it is not better deleted, since it's rather ambiguous? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:13, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
I think it is a highly unlikely search term. The only reason I can see for retention is the simply the general philosophy that we should keep the history, and try not to break any permanent links that may exist to the articles. --(WT-en) inas 01:02, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
I agree with Texugo — unless we really believe that someone is going to search for "Amusements" when they were trying to find "Packing list", we should not have a redirect. If you kept the original contributor's phrasing during the merge, I'd be happy to write "Bring a book and perhaps a CD player" and offer it up myself. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:12, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
Okay, I've given my best reasons for retaining a somewhat pathetic article. There was no phrasing retained. Blow it away.. --(WT-en) inas 08:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Nice try, Inas, but delete. (WT-en) Pashley 08:37, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

It seems that there is concensus to delete this, so it can be archived as soon as it is deleted. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:01, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:28, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Unlikely to merit its own travel article.

  • Merge and redirect to Scuba diving. (WT-en) Texugo 23:51, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
  • A lot of work is being done on this page right now. I'd say inform the user and/or wait until that user has finished editing before making any moves. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:46, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
I agree. Best to give active new users a chance to make their contributions before making a decision. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:43, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
  • I lean toward keep since there seems to be quite a bit of info, enough for an independent article. However, I would not object strongly to merging instead. I would like to see more explanation: how does SNUBA work? What are the advantages over normal snorkeling? Can you SNUBA on your own, or does it require expert guidance? What depth range does it apply for? etc. (WT-en) Pashley 09:49, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Pashley, if you read what is there, it is evident that the airtank stays above on a boat and you have a 7 meter tether. I still feel very strongly about a merge/delete, especially since this is a single company promoting their service, and it's not all that terribly unique in my opinion. (WT-en) Texugo 23:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

  • Merge into Scuba diving. What is relevant to say about Snuba already exists in this article, and can easily be condensed into a 1 or 2 paragraph section, I don't see a need to wait and breed more content into the wrong place, in this case. All that's notable about it is lack of carrying a tank on your back, lack of freedom since you're tied to a 7 meter cord, and that you don't need to be certified as a diver. I can't see anything else that distinguishes it enough to make it worth repeating all the similarities with scuba and snorkeling. Listing where it's offered, IMO, is not necessary, as I can't picture anyone planning a trip based on wanting to Snuba, it's simply something to point out as an option if you ever come across it. And per Texugo, we don't allow articles for companies – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:47, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep Snuba is a completetly unique form of diving that has taken the unregulated form of diving called Hookah diving and applied standards and proceedures to it. Throughout the world there are operators that try to pass off hookah diving as a safe alternative to scuba diving. These operations are not licensed, insured, Do not provide professional instructors and are responsible for promoting irresponsible diving practices (ie. not recieving proper training

There are many factors that make Snuba unique from scuba diving. 1. The raft itself acts as a diving platform, meaning people that are already nervous about their first experience diving are not just bobbing around in the ocean. 2. The raft is highly visible and provides a measure of safety to prevent against boat traffic accidents. 3. The limited mobility of the 7 meter hose prevents descending deeper than 7 meters, prevents people from straying off and not following instruction, virtually eliminates the problems of Decompression Sickness "the bends" as the depth of 7m for a maximum time of 25 minutes is not deep or long enough to absorb enough nitrogen to produce enough bubbles in the blood to cause the bends (not one case of bends through SNUBA in over 20 years). 4. No certification - yes, uncertified divers can try DSD scuba courses. However, there are many people that have an unnecessay aversion to diving through stereotypes and myths. After experiencing a truly soft approach to diving they are more likely to feel differently about scuba and proceed or allow children to proceed with scuba diving. 5. No tanks to wear - just as innovative as scuba was to those who wanted more freedom, removing the tanks allows another entire range of participants to try diving. Many people have been given the chance to dive that never would have if the option was not available. The handicapped, obese, elderly, children, people with weak knees / backs. 6. Overall attention to safety - soft weights instead of hard to prevent injuries out of the water and damage to coral should a weightbelt be dropped. Padding on the underside of the raft to prevent head injuries, harness attachment to prevent accidental regulator removal underwater, specialized training in addition to scuba diving theory and training. 7. Planning a trip - you would not believe the number of "family men" that have not been able to scuba dive for years as they respect their wifes belief that scuba is dangerous. There are many such people that are either aware of Snuba or seek out Snuba to provide an avenue to opening their family up to the wonders of diving. Many people want to scuba, but are put off by the cost of training and time involved, especially if they live in an area where there is no diving or only recieve limited holiday every year. Snuba gives them the chance to dive and tehy will seek it out. 8. Scuba is not snuba plain and simple. Other than the tanks and the regulator everything is presented and done in a different manner to provide a unique experience that can be translated into education of the ocean and environment, a chance to bring someone into scuba that previously would not have, and provide memories for a lifetime.

I am writing this as a PADI Open Water Scuba Instructor and also a Snuba Guide. From my position as a professional in both areas - they are different and equally noteworthy as holiday activities that should be sought to participate in. Just as scuba and snorkeling are different - Snuba is a seperate regulated activity that has gained quite a lot of recognition in America and Japan as such. With continued development and exposure as a holiday activity it is hoped that more people will become educated about our coral reefs. Some people will go on to become licensed scuba divers, some will remain snorkellers and some will seek out a repeat SNUBA adventure on their next holiday.

Lastly, according to the Goals and non-Goals section of Wikivoyage.org this article would be useful for: - travellers still planning - what activites to do (when seeing Snuba as an available activity in a destination it will allow them to read more about the activity within Wikivoyage.org without having to exit to try to find possibly false or misleading information) - Inclusion in other travel guides as the information for all contacts and destinations is up to date. - For travellers on the road - for anyone who sees a brochure or hears from other travellers about Snuba it will give them a source of information to research. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) AlohaMatt (talk • contribs)

  • Looks to me (non-expert, I only snorkel) like the article should be kept, re-titled, and generalised to cover all "hookah diving". SNUBA is just one company's version; cover that too. but with less touting of that company's service. (WT-en) Pashley 05:54, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Merge & delete Keep. My mind's open, since I don't totally understand what this is (wikipedia:Snuba was not helpful, since it is an unsourced promotional piece...). But our Project:Deletion policy is pretty clear—no articles for individual businesses. Should this be merged into a Surface supplied diving/Hooka diving article, or just back into the Scuba diving article, I'm not sure. It clearly will have to be both reduced and rewritten to avoid being an advertisement. And Matt, your vfd comment reads like an advert—please read the deletion policy, and explain (succinctly) why your page qualifies for an article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:41, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
    • A merge and delete would interfere with the attribution history of the text, wouldn't it? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:25, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
Not hardly. It's certainly not policy to keep redirects from articles for businesses (the deletion policy states the opposite), and we don't have any consensus behind keeping them around to preserve attribution history. Even if we did, the vfd discussion clearly shows who the author of the article was, and therefore where the content came from in a potential merge. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
The similarities with Scuba are far to vast for this to warrant a separate article, even if there were multiple companies offering it. It will fit perfectly as a paragraph or two in Scuba diving. If somehow enough non-fluffy and non-repetitive content is added at some point, we could assess then if it needs to be split out for size reasons. But it isn't even close to that now – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:57, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Firstly, I don't think the similarities with Scuba are sufficient to merge the two. Scuba requires proper training and qualifications. If you are not interested or have the time for this, then you won't read the Scuba article, but may still well do this stuff. There is a very different demographic who would be interested in this. I think we just need to find the right article title if we think SNUBA is too linked to one commercial organisation. We just call the article that, and then reference the commercial organisation within the article if required, and de-tout the article. --(WT-en) inas 02:19, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
Note: Wikipedia's Snuba article has been improved; while the name "Snuba" is trademarked and the process is patented, it does seem to be growing as a vacation activity. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:03, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. Snuba has introduced more non-divers to scuba diving than any other organized and affiliated effort. And, was done so inadvertently. Snuba does not offer scuba or is promoted as an alternative to scuba. The name and program is proprietary and unique only to Snuba. If this page were to be considered for merging with a generic category it would be "snorkeling" or "water activities." Snuba is not scuba. The Snuba market and programs are directly specifically at non-divers and snorkelers. I know this first hand. The dive industry should embrace any efforts to promote Snuba. 69.224.222.179 18:47, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
The name and program are as proprietary and unique to Snuba as KFC's recipe is to KFC. We are not the dive industry and we have a policy against promoting commercial enterprises. (WT-en) Texugo 03:06, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
The issue is not whether SNUBA is promoting a commercial company, but if having an article on it is of interest and benefit to the traveller. We don't exclude the possibility of commercial promotion - after all every private enterprise we list has that possibility - we just put it behind the priority of giving benefit to the traveller. If we were wikifood, KFC would probably at least rate a mention. --(WT-en) inas 06:55, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
We're not Wikifood, but a search on "KFC" gets many pages of hits. Our China article, for example, has "As everywhere in the world, prices for food and drink at Chinese airports are vastly inflated. Coffee that is ¥25 in a downtown shop is ¥78 at the same chain's airport branches. KFC seems to be the one exception; their many airport shops charge the same prices as other branches. Paying ¥20 or more for a KFC meal may or may not be worthwhile when there are ¥5 noodles across the street, but at the airports it is usually the best deal around." (WT-en) Pashley 11:27, 23 August 2009 (EDT)
If the SNUBA article is seen as promoting a specific company, it is largely because they are leader in a field of one. They dont really operate in a field where there is much competition, so the article must necessarily promote the only participant. Not much one can do about that. I think that the differences from SCUBA are more important than the similarities. It really can be seen as an alternative to both SCUBA and Snorkelling. Some of the safety aspects and advantages claimed are debatable, but I dont think that is the function of this forum. I could expound on this topic to drive a non diver to distraction, so I won't unless someone really wants me to. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 17:17, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. There may be some issues about whether SNUBA is promoting a specific company, but the term is probably becoming a generic for a mode of diving that is significantly different from recreational SCUBA. As one who has been involved in Recreational, Technical, Scientific and Commercial diving, including instruction in all four of these categories for about 25 years, I dont see where else the information would fit in. It is definitively not snorkel, It is debateably SCUBA, in that it is self contained, but equally it is surface supplied, which in commercial diving is seen as a major distinction fron SCUBA, and similarly in recreational SCUBA where it is generally not used at all by the major diver certification agencies. If it were to be merged with SCUBA it would probably be necessary to rename SCUBA to Recreational Underwater Diving, which would not be particularly user freindly. Another option would be to rename to Recreational Hookah Diving. I would accept that without liking it very much. I have some issues with the claims made by the author of the article, but they are issues of fact, opinion and policy, not whether the article is appropriate as a stand alone. To close off, I would comment that I am very new to Wikivoyage in spite of the number of words I have uploaded, and do not consider myself to be in any way knowledgeable on Wikivoyage policy. This contribution is in response to a request to comment here an the basis of my background in diving. I hope this helps. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 17:17, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
I have been back to the SNUBA article and my second impression is that the explanatory sections read a bit too much like an advertising brochure for my taste. There is a constant repetition that the equipment is safe, but nowhere is it mentioned that there is a risk of a lung overpressure or drowning accident, just as for Scuba, and that these are probably the greatest hazards for novice divers. I dont know if this is sufficient to violate Wikivoyage policy, but I would advise toning the hard sell down a bit. Linking to places where it is available seems acceptable, as it is unlikely that this information will be available elsewhere in Wikivoyage. These issues could be corrected easily. I am willing to do them if necessary, but feel that it would be more polite to let the author make the adjustments. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 18:07, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
Related questions: We do not seem to have an article on snorkelling. Should we? My guess would be it is at least as common as scuba, let alone snuba. Currently diving is just a redirect to "scuba diving". Should it instead be some sort of overview/disambiguation page with links to snorkelling, scuba and snuba, plus perhaps a brief mention of the deep diving with full suit & a statement that we do not cover that because it is almost never recreational? Any volunteers to write either page? (WT-en) Pashley 22:26, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
I will add them to my 'to do' list. Just to check we are on the same wavelength, Diving is to be a disambiguation page directing to options of Scuba diving, SNUBA, and Snorkelling. Possibly also Free diving which is deep breath hold diving, whereas Snorkelling is often considered to be mainly surface swimming with a snorkel. I am taking it that the consensus is to keep SNUBA? Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 15:35, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
Diving converted to disambiguation page, with brief explanations and links to Scuba diving, SNUBA, Snorkelling and Free diving. The snorkelling and Free diving topics are a bit outside my expertise and interest, but I will keep an eye on them if anyone else writes them, or may put in a couple of outlines at some stage if no-one else is interested. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 16:15, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
Looks good, although I'm still wonder if the SNUBA article should be moved to Hookah diving. I'll leave that question for the divers. (WT-en) Pashley 12:00, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
As one of the divers, I dont have particularly strong opinion either way. SNUBA would be a subset of Hookah, as Hookah is usually surface supply from a boat or shore, often from a compressor, whereas SNUBA is surface supply from a compressed air cylinder on a self contained and unmanned float, and I dont know of any conventional recreational Hookah operations. I would say leave it for now, and merge with hookah if it ever becomes appropriate. If someone ever writes an article on Hookah then SNUBA could and probably should be included in it. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 15:40, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:29, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

A standalone district article for the otherwise-undistrictified Bogotá article.

La Candelaria is Bogotá's primary tourist destination, the location of many hotels and hostels and of most of the city's historical and cultural attractions. This is a travel website, and La Candelaria is Bogotá's primary tourism travel destination. In contrast, Bogotá in general is primarily a business travel destination. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 190.27.235.247 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge & redirect. The article definitely should not (and may not) be deleted per Project:Deletion policy#Deleting_vs._redirecting. I think we should eventually district this city of 8 million, and La Candelaria might make for a good, self-sufficient article, but a districts discussion needs to happen first. See Talk:Bogotá There is not a lot of content in either this article, or the main Bogotá article, so a merge should be fine for right now. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:34, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
Looks to me like Peter has it right. Merge & redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 21:58, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd like to add that La Candelaria is qualitatively different from the rest of Bogota, which is known as a business city, the capital of a narcostate, etc. In contrast, La Candelaria is a colonial, artsy neighborhood. Merging it into the rest of Bogotá wouldn't do it justice.

No one is disagreeing with you on the notability of the neighborhood. The point is that a districts discussion is needed before district articles should be created. Ad hoc schemes create real messes, that are really hard to clean up—take a look at how awful this one got. If and when we do improve the Bolivia article enough, and complete a districts proposal on the talk page, then we can start creating district articles, and the content you created for La Candelaria will not at all be lost—it will be easy to use it as a base for a new district article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:54, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Redirected to Bogotá --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:01, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. While I would love to have this image on our Vancouver 2010 page, our current image policy makes no provisions for fair use. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:35, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Personal protest against stupid-looking abstract 5-colored olympic logos (and what (WT-en) LtPowers said). --(WT-en) inas 23:43, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. Hey - that's not abstract, it's an inukshuk  :) But I do agree we shouldn't be using it. One of these days I'll take the photo of the Olympic clock I've been meaning to take to replace it... (WT-en) Shaund 01:00, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Is the inukshuk supposed to be skiing, or something? --(WT-en) inas 01:52, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Nah, it's pretty lazy. Just standing around and being friendly (it's a symbol of cooperation and friendship). (WT-en) Shaund 00:59, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:03, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. The trail description is not exact enough. To follow this route you need a detailed map, and a key to the cabin - you can not get either key or map nearby. It is a diffcult and long route, there are better options in the same area. (WT-en) Tofola 09:14, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Why wouldn't we just add this info to the article, and let the traveller decide? --(WT-en) inas 19:20, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Keep Yes, the information is currently insufficient, but it has enough of a layout to allow someone to add to it. If you have more information about this hike, like where to get the key and such, then why not add it? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. As I argued above. --(WT-en) inas 22:45, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:06, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

This appears to be nothing but a creek or trailhead named after a creek near Bishop, California. Any useful information, if there were any, should go in that article. I might suggest a redirect to McGee Creek State Park in Oklahoma, if there were such an article. I don't think redirecting it to Bishop makes any sense given the "McGee+Creek&btnG=Search Google results I got.

  • Delete or Redirect to Antlers, the nearest town to the OK state park for which we have an article, and add a listing to that town's Get Out section. (WT-en) Texugo 02:54, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
  • The place in California is a real destination, but it is small. I'd suggest a disambig page so the State Park in OK is reachable. The place in California should probably be folded in to Tom's Place. In other news, I'll go through the Mono County article and remove a bunch of too-small destinations. -- (WT-en) Colin 12:23, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
It is a community? I could find any evidence on Google, Google Maps, or Wikipedia. (WT-en) Texugo 23:34, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
I was confused. Some of the other Canyons in the region are destinations with multiple sleep options, but this one is just fishing plus one campground. No need for an article for the California McGee Creek. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:42, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Antlers

Per Project:Bodies of water.

Outcome: Merged and redirected --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:34, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Per Project:Bodies of water.

Outcome: Merged and redirected --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:34, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

See Talk:Cape Town#Lost festival for where this page came from. It's no longer useful (never really was, for that matter) and possibly a copyvio. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:54, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:34, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know what I think about this one. It's a private island visitable only through the proprietary resort company, which I think makes it kind of like XChalet or some of those other resorts in the Mexican Carribean coast, destinations for which we have decided against allowing articles for. The See and Do options are already admittedly few, and any Get in, Get around, Eat, or Sleep sections are all going to end up being things provided by the same resort company (and indeed what is there now reads like touting). The only thing going for it is that it's an hour flight away from the next closest destination. I'm still leaning toward merging it into the Get out section of Pemba and making this a redirect to that section. What do you guys think?

  • Merge and Redirect (WT-en) Texugo 22:59, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. If the only way to get there is a one-hour flight and you can sleep there, it's a destination of its own, even if there isn't very much there. See eg. Layang Layang. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:06, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep. Agree with (WT-en) Jpatokal. --(WT-en) inas 22:44, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:34, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

I think this is a bit of an overlap, since we already have a Camping travel topic. Also, I believe that creating a list of worldwide camping sites with a map that displays all of them is not practical (maybe even impossible). What do you think about this? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:05, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedy redirect to Camping. I was about to vfd it myself, not realizing that we do have a Camping article. The map idea to me sounds clearly impossible, and should anyway be discussed elsewhere (Talk:Camping). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:34, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Redirected to Camping --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:36, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome Merged and redirected to Kent#Get in --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:42, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Merge and redirect to Skopje. This is a single district article for an otherwise un-districtified city of under 600,000 people. (WT-en) Texugo 22:55, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
  • Please speedy delete as it is an ad. (WT-en) jan 07:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Same user as above, left a friendly note on his talk page, any non commercial info there could be salvaged to Fiji if anyone would be so inclined, but other than that i root for deletion. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 23:20, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Speedied. Obvious non-article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:32, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
  • Please speedy delete as it is obvius spam (WT-en) jan 06:48, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Copy vio from http://www.himalayanhills.net/vaishno_devi_yatra.html. And hardly an article. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:39, 10 October 2009 (EDT)


Two for speedying. Both ads and nothing else.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Useless and another copy vio . --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:39, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Move it to Ouranoupoli, title in our usual format, remove the copyright violation text, but keep the article since it is a real place. (WT-en) Pashley 07:32, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Changed my mind. We already have an article titled Ouranoupolis. Delete this one. If it has any useful info, copy it there first. (WT-en) Pashley 07:38, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. (WT-en) Pashley 07:53, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

A Hindu temple, all text copied from the Wikipedia article. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:21, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

It seems the previous discussion did not quite resolve the issue of whether or not this destination should be redirected to the island or city name... I don't suppose anyone knows anything more now? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:58, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: kept. (WT-en) Pashley 08:04, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. I don't see any reason to split this type of information out from our destination guides. Also, much of the article appears to be a copyright violation . --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:32, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Hmm, but we don't really have an article on the Baltic Sea. That title currently redirects to Baltic States, which you linked, but the sea borders other countries as well. Of course, if it's a copyvio... (WT-en) LtPowers 20:57, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, for time being. I actually told the user to try his hand at creating this instead of his original attempt at "Baltic Sea", which is clearly a no-no. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:15, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
  • There is no copyright violation although some of the stuff was research elsewhere the sentences are my own. Baltic states is only 3 small states and the cruises seldom stop at any of them. The current redirect to baltic states from baltic sea actually makes no sense in my estimation since it is based only one the word being the same so far as I can tell. Baltic states is only a minor destination of three countries and have very little tourist value while the Baltic Seas cruises are quite popular and getting more so. You guys can, of course, do whatever you want. My intent is to provide a resource that can be used to springboard into other articles on the site and easy reference for a person going on the cruise. Of course there are many cruises and they don't all hit the same ports so the general nature is to provide references to all possible ports for the user. --(WT-en) DaleDe 01:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Just for the record, the two times I have checked, I get exact matches for copyrighted text (this last time: "sea temperature which, in the late spring is dependent upon the melting of the Winter"). My personal experience has been that cruises on the Baltic Sea that do not feature stops in the Baltic States rarely refer to the sea's name at all. Whenever I've seen "Baltic Cruises" or something of that sort, there is at least a stop in Riga. But my point above is really about content—there's no overwhelming amount of travel content that needs to be split out of the guides.
All that said, I disagree with Jani—I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have a Baltic Sea region article. But the copyvio text has to go. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:30, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Perfectly acceptable doesn't (to me) convey the gist of Project:Bodies of water. While I know there have been numerous discussions on this, so far the policy still reads that a destination guide (which includes a region guide, in my understanding) on a body of water is not acceptable. --(WT-en) inas 02:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
That would contradict my reading of Project:Bodies_of_water#Regions. The point of that policy is that we don't create articles to write about the bodies of water, and that is not what Dale has set out to do. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:52, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
I've been reading it as we don't make articles about bodies of water unless that's the natural name for the region in which they are located. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
This is beside the point -- in this particular case, it's quite obvious that "Baltic Sea" is not a sensible or necessary region grouping, since a) the countries around are dissimilar (compare, say, Kaliningrad and Denmark) and b) all the countries around it are already slotted in elsewhere.
However, I do agree with the original creator that the Baltic Sea is much larger than the three Baltic states, and that many cruises on that body of water don't even visit them. Eg. of the 7 cruises listed at (#1 hit on Google for "baltic sea cruises"), only two actually stop in any of the Baltics. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:13, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Keep, it would be a sub page for all neighbourhoodpages of Northern Europe so I dont see the problem of joining all that into one page (this) and linking it from the get in, get around, do sections. -- (WT-en) Eiland 14:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
I'm removing the tag from the page as there doesn't seem to be consensus. -- (WT-en) Eiland 06:54, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2009&oldid=4924275"