Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/October 2011

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← September 2011 Votes for deletion archives for October 2011 (current) November 2011 →
  • Delete. It had the VFD tag, but was not yet placed here by Felix. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:44, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete. I was still trying to upload it here globe-trotter...unfortunatly slow responses are occurring on the site at present-- (WT-en) felix 15:48, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Orphaned image, the current revision is corrupt and the previous revision is a picture of a bed. Speedy delete if no one objects. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:30, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:13, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. A VFD notice was added to this article some time ago but it was apparently never put on the nominations page. No useful info in this article, and it was created by a user who added several articles of questionable value, several of which have already been deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Greater Manchester. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:15, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

This article is not about a destination nor a region but rather about 17 individual attractions, which to me makes it a non-article, plus those attraction are spread out over a 90km-diameter area that crosses parts of both Southern and Western Netherlands. I suggest that we should tell about the individual attractions in the articles of whatever cities they are likely to be visited from, and put a blurb or infobox in the country article to give the general info, and then redirect this article there.

  • Merge and redirect - (WT-en) texugo 08:30, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Geez, that's a truely bold and unfriendly step, when a new but regular user is working on something :S A note on the talk page or some normal discussion first would have been a lot less discouraging. I was expanding this existing article after a discussion Globe-trotter and I had on Talk:Netherlands. Although the full Delta works contain dikes and sluices across a larger area, it's not at all 17 individual attractions. Neeltje Jans park is the main informations centre, and Haringvlietdam, Maeslantkering, Westerscheldetunnel and Oosterscheldekering are the only ones that have any kind of visitor's facilities, the others are just dams. Individually, they are simply uninteresting. Splitting up the Delta works into individual mentions in village-articles would show an absolute lack of understanding of what this is and what makes it interesting. It would be of very limited use for travellers. However, I'm quite done so do whatever fits the rules. (WT-en) Justme 09:13, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Agree with Justme, a pretty harsh way to deal with this as we were trying to get the article in a better shape. A discussion on the Talk page would have been a better. Anyway, it's not 17 individual attractions, you can't visit most of them. For visitors, the Delta Works are centered around the Eastern Scheldt storm surge barrier and the Neeltje Jans park that comes along with it. There is also a visitor's centre at the Haringvliet. These have significance for travelers interested in technological achievements, and separately are just dams. Only taken together it could be an interesting story to read and have relevance to the traveler. I think something in the line of this article could at least be written somehow, if it's not in this form, then as a travel topic. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:40, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Wait and see. As the joint architects of this article are a WT veteran with many thousands of excellent edits to his name, and a relative newcomer who has already done lots of very good work, I would like to see where they are going with this idea.--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:19, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
Oh come on guys, VfD isn't about feelings-- I don't doubt that the information itself is useful and will definitely fit in somewhere; I'm just suggesting that this isn't the way to do it, and I'm putting it here because this is where everyone else will see it. On the talk page there, only those working on the article are likely to see it and I'd like to see a broader take on this. It definitely shouldn't be a destination/region page of its own, as it's never going to have significant Buy/Eat/Drink/Sleep/Contact/Get out sections. If it is, or parts of it are, indeed an actual park, maybe it should be treated that way, or perhaps if there is actually enough to say about it to make a sort of travel topic or even an itinerary (are people actually likely to make a point to visit more than a couple of these things?), that could potentially be ok too. What I am suggesting is that, as poorly as it fits our hierarchy and as little info as it has, it could probably be covered in country, region, or destination articles that already exist. I do think it could "be an interesting story to read"-- in an infobox in the main country article. What we have so far would totally fit there, so don't take this as some mean-spirited jab. (WT-en) texugo 11:59, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
It would be way too much content for the country article. The Netherlands See section already has information about the Dutch' fight against the sea. Adding all this info there would overcrowd that article big time, and would be unhelpful, as its not general information about the Netherlands. Pretty much every guidebook to the Netherlands writes about it this way, I wouldn't know why it has to be different on Wikivoyage. If you have suggestions on how to deal with this, I'm open for it, but adding each dam to some random nearby village would not make any sense as its the overall project that's interesting, not each individual dam. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:38, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
Again, I said what we have so far would fit there. I wouldn't expect a travel guide to go into nearly as much detail as Wikipedia regarding the engineering, chronology, operational details, commissioning, and conceptual framework, and the Wikipedia article isn't even that long. I'm also supposing it's not necessary to give much info on anything that can't be visited anyway. If, however, there actually is so much more to say about it, I'd urge you to retool this as a travel topic, since there isn't really going to be much to fill Buy/Eat/Drink/Sleep/Contact/Get out that won't fit into actual destination articles, and since it is geographically spotty. (WT-en) texugo 22:09, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep. Interesting article. It may be better worked as a travel topic, owing to its complex geography, but that is an issue properly worked out on the article talk page, not here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:19, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep. Changing it to an itinerary article of travel topic seems a good idea. (WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 08:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. This article does not meet the Project:What is an article criteria, and after removing the links to other guides there does not seem to be much worth merging. I'm not sure how much value there is in a redirect, so nominating for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:33, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - In addition to the above, the article admits that it's not hard to find vegetarian restaurants in Spain. If there is no special trick to that, then I don't see the point of this article. Incidentally, this was copied here from Wikipedia probably because of a template they have suggesting it be moved to Wikivoyage. Didn't realize they had that kind of template. (WT-en) texugo 23:44, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Stub article reads like spam for the Inyo County visitors bureau. (WT-en) Eco84 12:05, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - This kind of article wouldn't even fly for destinations in Japan where traveling to see the autumn colors is a national passion. (WT-en) texugo 12:17, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. I merged the content into Inyo County, and have written to their visitor bureau since there seems to be some question as to whether or not it is a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:51, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Not sure how to deal with this, but this template has been deprecated and no other article page links to it anymore. I guess we could delete it? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:21, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete, to make it easier to find the templates we do use! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:48, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unused templates are clear candidates for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:51, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Same with this page, not really sure what it's used for? Apparently it was used for the Korean language version of WT, but that has long been established now. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:50, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:51, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:51, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

These are some of the entries mentioned in the list in question and either not mentioned or not listed as attractions in the Karachi article:

Jehangir Kothari Parade, Merewether Memorial Tower, Teen Talwar, Abdullah Shah Ghazi Mausoleum, Alam Shah Baba at Jama Cloth, Gaib Shah Baba at Kemari, Misri Shah Baba at Clifton, Muhammed Shah Dullah Sabzwari at Kharadar, Nuri Baba at Teen Hatty, Qari Muslehuddin Aleh Rehma, Governor House, Sindh Assembly Hall, Jinnah Courts, Wazir Mansion. Someone else can look over the list of parks, etc. (that's where I stopped).

Maybe the best thing to do would be to move the entire list to the "Talk" page for Karachi, to serve as a convenient reference list for editors. What do you all think? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:46, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

If it's an exact copy from elsewhere it should be deleted completely - putting copyvio text on a talk page would still be a violation of copyright law. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:45, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
I understand. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 15:54, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, the caption of which is "Drunk girl holding ChaCha and shot glass"; it's tough to see how this could be in any way useful for inclusion in a travel article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Metro map bearing a "©Nexus" mark with no indication that it can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned photograph of a map. Since there in no indication that the authors of the map are allowing their work to be licensed CC-SA this should be deleted as a likely copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a very intense-looking individual with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable person with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, but I can't quite figure out what it is. A map? Some sort of travel document? A logo? Whatever it is, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to keep it around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image, apparently a logo of some sort. Since it's unused and only 102x96 there doesn't seem to be much point in keeping it around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Three images of a hotel terrace, all orphaned, and all apparently uploaded to promote a hotel in Nha Trang. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable girl with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image of an individual with no model release provided. This image disturbs me for reasons that I neither understand nor am capable of putting into words. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Even if this weren't a copyvio, it was uploaded for promotional purposes and at 213x61 is too small to be of any practical use. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Orphaned, and even if it's not a copyvio, at 176x150 it's too small to be of much practical use. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Has been tagged as a copyvio, but was not listed here as VfD. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Stub article for a body of water. I had to delete the external link from the page because edits were being blocked by the spam filter. (WT-en) Eco84 11:56, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete, we don't cover rivers. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 03:59, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:08, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Not sure why it has been created, as we already have a Route 66 article. This could better be done as a routebox. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:16, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. If it served a purpose once, it no longer does. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:58, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 00:19, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep Delete (see below). The discussion that led to creation of that page is at Talk:Route 66#Giant city list. To summarize: itineraries generally list the cities that they pass through, but in this case the list was huge. Since it was deemed useful info for people planning a trip on Route 66, but since it didn't fit into the article very well, it was moved to a sub-page for those who wanted it, and referenced from the main article. Keeping it around doesn't seem to hurt anything, and it has been of benefit to travelers planning a trip on Route 66 as noted in the referenced discussion. -- (WT-en) wrh2 00:57, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
    • The current separate article with cities is really odd. I do agree that the list of cities can be useful, but they should be incorporated in the Route 66 article somehow. I have added the list of cities from Chicago to Springfield here , and could do the same for the rest of the list. What do you think of this solution? This way we could still delete that article, which can never be developed into something good. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:15, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
      • That looks good - provided the article was updated as you've outlined then I'd agree that the separate city listing page would be redundant and would have no objection to a deletion. -- (WT-en) wrh2 14:37, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:08, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Appears to be a simple attraction rather than an actual park for which we would normally have an article (and should probably be referred to first by its English name "Ale's Stones", as it is listed on Wikipedia). I think this should probably be merged and redirected, but I'm not sure where.

Result: Merge tag added for Ystad. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:56, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned map image with a copyright on it, but no indication that it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned copyvio from Google maps. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned satellite image with a copyright specified on the image with no indication that it can be re-used CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image of a timetable for "Silverjet". There are potential copyvio issues, and a three year old timetable is likely of little or no use at this point. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image that was clearly copied from an airline web site with no indication that it can be re-used CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned, copyrighted hostel map with no indication that it can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned map of Egypt that has been superseded by Image:Map of Egypt.png, and there is no indication that the underlying satellite imagery for this map can be re-used CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned advertising for a Turkish travel agency whose URL is on the blacklist. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:28, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Article on a body of water doesn't comply with policy. Some info might useful in other articles for nearby towns. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 21:03, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

It's a tough one and I remember looking at this when I regionalised Cambodia in 2009. Our policy on bodies of water still confuses me greatly. Massive tomes have been written on this - here for example. I still don't really understand. We have articles about bodies of water that are certainly not regions (if that is the criterion?) but have a "convenient" region template applied (eg Loch Ness). Could do the same for Ton Le Sap. --(WT-en) burmesedays 21:32, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
Comment Tough one indeed. I read the related discussions and I really couldn't decipher anything that even looks like policy. Seems that it could either go as a region, disambiguation page or a straight redirect. From what I understand, Tonle Sap is generally a day trip from Siem Reap for most travellers. Would the Tonle Sap Lake article contain anything travel related that is not already in the SR article? - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
I think this discussion should move to the article's talk page - this one shouldn't be deleted per Project:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting, so the discussion is about whether it should be redirected, and if so where. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Any objections? Going twice... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: kept with discussion copied to article talk page. (WT-en) Pashley 01:50, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Another India list article. Even if we didn't categorically avoid lists, there's no way we could construct a single list of all pet-friendly accommodations in India, nor would it be useful if we could. This type of information belongs in individual listings, so I don't think there is much of anything to merge.

  • Delete - (WT-en) texugo 09:22, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. I've left a note on the article's talk page noting that adding this information to listings in city articles is fine, but a generic "list of" article is probably not useful. -- (WT-en) wrh2 12:33, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete. Same reasons as given above.--(WT-en) burmesedays 22:51, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned aerial view of a resort. In addition to being unused and promotional this one looks suspicious as a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a resort. In addition to being unused and promotional this one looks suspicious as a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a hotel parking lot. This could potentially be incorporated into an article, but it's a low-quality image of something that isn't particularly relevant for travel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a non-notable "grocery and video store". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:49, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image that appears to have been uploaded to promote a specific resort, and also looks suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Four orphaned images of the same non-notable hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a non-notable hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned map image providing directions to a specific guesthouse. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned subway map, the original indicates that it was taken from another site but there is no indication that it can be re-used under the CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image with a frame and a caption, highly suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. An orphaned aerial image from the same uploader as Image:PinkBunny.jpg, so this is also suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned (well, archived on a talk page) thumbnail advertising a house rental. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:32, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted all. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of recognizable individuals with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:32, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to put this up for re-nomination, as the earlier voting process was obviously rigged (see ). If Delta Works should go, which has no clear city where it should be redirected to, we should at least redirect the Isha Yoga Centre. It is clearly an attraction, and belongs to Coimbatore, where it is already listed in the See section.

  • Merge and redirect to Coimbatore. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 02:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Merge and redirect to Coimbatore. - As the one who nominated it for deletion the first time, I also felt that the voting was rigged: New users practically never make their very first contribution on the VfD page, and for this one little-known attraction, there were at least five or six such never-contributed-before users voting to keep it within only a day or two of its nomination? Not at all believable. (WT-en) texugo 02:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep per my comments last time. New users were hardly the only people recommending the article be kept. Merging to a community 35 kilometers distant seems absurd to me. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Speedy keep. The previous VFD was not "obviously rigged" - there were four "keep" votes from regular users and two "merge and delete" votes. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Keep I don't particularly like ashrams, but merging this one into the nearest huge city (which is not at all the nearest town!) just makes no sense to me either. For travellers, this ashram is a destination of its own and apart from being a transport hub on the way there, the huge and industrial city of Coimbatore has little to do with it. Also, putting all this info into the Combatoire article would throw that one totally off balance, as the ashram is not a major sight of that city. If the yoga centre has to be merged into something, it should probably be into the village article of Semmedu. However, in practice it doesn't clearly belong to any city or town, it is a destination of its own, you can eat and sleep there, and the current article is functional (guide status even), so just keeping it seems the most sensible thing right now. (WT-en) Justme 11:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
That discussion puts a dangerous precedent for Wikivoyage, so it should be discussed thoroughly. The previous discussion is 100% rigged to the bone with 6 obvious fake in favor voters, even excluding the writer of the article (who probably set it all up). A majority of votes were fake, which puts the whole process at stake, and with that, the credibility of Wikivoyage as a whole.
Having an attraction 35 km far is by any means not "absurd", it's the way many articles are structured on the site. Kanchanaburi has attractions more than 100km off. People visit the attraction from Coimbatore, so that's where it should be listed according to current Wikivoyage policy (and it is already listed in that article in the first place).
And Justme, I don't think it would throw the Coimbatore article out of balance. This article has way too much information for just one sight, a lot of it should go. I could easily write 30 pages about the Grand Palace in Bangkok and then make it a separate article, but that doesn't mean it's a good fit for a travel guide. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Globe-trotter - while I respect your opinion, I take offense to your repeated comments that the previous discussion was "rigged to the bone". As was pointed out above, even if you take away all votes from new users, there four "keep" votes and only two "merge" votes. And I'm far from convinced that all of the new users who voted were "fake users". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:25, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
They were all fake. I could be political correct, and state that the only contributions they did were voting on that particular VFD, but let's be honest here, they were all fake users (probably created by the writer of that article, who might even be the owner of the attraction). On Wikipedia, those votes would not even count as only users with a particular number of edits made count there. Obviously the votes from the Wikivoyage veterans are real, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look more careful to this slippery slope. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Reading that vfd discussion again, there was a genuine 4-2 vote to keep. The other votes appear to be highly questionable though and, to be polite, somewhat outside the normal pattern of vfd voting :).--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
While we normally don't get many VFD comments from new users, Wikivoyage is also the #2 Google result for anyone searching for this ashram, so while the voting was suspicious, without seeing the logs I think it's impossible to definitively call fraud - I suspect if some of our other high-ranking articles like Grand old hotels were put up for VFD that they might also attract significant attention from drive-by users. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

(Edit conflict).

  • Merge and re-direct to Coimbatore. At first glance this article totally deceived me, and I even stuck it up as an OtbP candidate. It is though clearly not an article. It's a 150 acre Yoga-based property, as stated in the 3rd sentence of the article. I am bemused as to why veteran Wikivoyageers voted to keep it first time round? This sets a very nasty precedent indeed, and would make deleting any future resort article more than troublesome. The fact that there is loads of detail is irrelevant. I could write as much about a large Four Seasons golf resort if I put my mind to it. As for the appropriateness of merging to Coimbatore, 20 miles is a nothing distance in India (or anywhere else for that matter), and should be no impediment to such a merge. It is certainly not "absurd". --(WT-en) burmesedays 11:20, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
It's not that I want to keep this article specifically, but it seems weird to put it into Coimbatore. Even in India 35 km is a good bus ride, but more importantly, there are other towns closer. It would be like putting the Keukenhof into Amsterdam, despite the fact that there are other towns nearer. The fact that WT (and even Wikipedia) is underdeveloped as far as that region goes, doesn't seem a good reason to dump information into the nearest city we have. Keeping it seemed easier, but if it's a precedent matter I don't think ashrams generally make good separate destinations. (WT-en) Justme 11:56, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Coimbatore is not set in stone to me. We could also maybe create an article Velliangiri Mountains , or maybe another town/village from where travelers visit this attraction. I have objections with the principle of creating articles for attractions, which is not allowed per Wikivoyage policy. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Merging it with Coimbatore would be like merging Walt Disney World into Orlando. Except even farther away. If you can sleep there, I really don't see what the problem is. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:52, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
You can't really sleep there, it's a hermitage. The sleeping facilities there all need to be booked weeks in advance, because it's a religious retreat. Accepting Isha Yoga Centre as having sleeping facilities, then we could count every temple in Thailand as an article, as every temple has a monk's quarters where you could stay. About WDW, it has an immense size and millions of annual visitors and many many attractions. However, if it had just a few buildings (it doesn't I know), then indeed it would have to be listed at a nearby town. I visited WDW sleeping in Kissimmee.
Just look at the map to see how small Isha Yoga Centre really is, it really cannot be compared with WDW. The scale uses 0.05 km (!), something I've never seen before on any map. Just looking at the See listings is laughable, they describe rooms in the buildings. One listing, to give an example, is the "audio/visual centre", with the description "Move on to the audio/visual center where you will be shown a short introductory video which will give you a better idea of the temple, its background and history. The video is played alternately in both Tamil - the local language, and in English". Many museums I know have these kind of introductory videos, those in no way should be See listings of their own. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
In any case, "can you sleep there?" is a sloppy criterion which has never made sense to me. You can sleep at hotels, campsites, homestays and all manner of other places, but that does not make any of them articles.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Speedy keep. The original vfd was not "rigged". Even if you discount votes from anyone without a long track record at Wikivoyage, there were 4 keep votes and 2 delete votes. And discounting votes from new users is not fair; even if you suspect that someone is voting multiple times, their arguments should still be taken into account (and the vfd page does not follow a straight majoritarian voting system either). Nothing has changed with the article since then, so a second nomination seems inappropriate and a waste of time. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
To respond to points made, though (and this would be more appropriately done on the article's talk page): 1) for every time someone asserts "this is an attraction," I can assert "this is a destination." Perhaps developing formal criteria would be worthwhile, since this is not the first time this has come up. 2) Why would we name the article after some random nearby town that no one visits, if this is the place people go to? In any rate, the vfd page is not appropriate for that type of discussion, which should be done on the article talk page. 3) For my (and others') opinions on why this article should not be deleted, see the first vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Formal criteria would be useful if they stop this happening again. On your point 2), I thought that putting listings into the nearest town was standard Wikivoyage procedure, or have we all been doing that wrong?
On the purported lack of fame of Coimbatore (which I would dispute anyway as it is the 2nd largest city in Tamil Nadu beaten only by Chennai, and it has its own international airport), it seems that Project:What is an article? deals with that: If an attraction is really famous and travellers may not know the city or region it is in, then create an article with the attraction name as title, but make it a redirect to the city or region and put the description in the city or region article.
I would suggest leaving this here for now, or moving it to Project:What is an article?, rather than burying it on the article talk page, as it is a rather important policy discussion. --(WT-en) burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think this is ready to get swept aside, and I resent any notion of speedy disposal. I am astonished that long-time users are voting to keep this. If it were a spa resort or a Methodist retreat with five times as many buildings and twice the land area located 20 miles from Childress, Texas, there is no way in hell any of you would be voting to keep it as an article. But because it's in oh-so-mysterious India land of yogis, you are voting to keep it. As (WT-en) globetrotter pointed out, this article is embarrassingly detailed for an establishment that is in no way historic, and I think it makes us look like touts. Like maybe I can throw a religious retreat together somewhere and get my own Wikivoyage article too. This place is essentially an accommodation that must be booked in advance plus non-historic religious facilities, and I cannot wrap my head around the fact that some veteran users are being fooled by the original writer's detail into thinking that this place merits its own article. If it had been written a little more poorly like most such attempts, I think everyone would see it for what it is -- just another place trying to make money. (WT-en) texugo 00:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
The rules at wiaa clearly state that individual companies should not have their own articles. I heavily object to a speedy, as this article is a violation of Wikivoyage policy, and thus those in favor should give arguments why this should warrant an exception. The exceptions section states the following: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." I think both of these do not apply here. The Isha Yoga Centre is easily done as a day-trip from Coimbatore and does not require an overnight stay. The information would not overload that article, as this article gives a ridiculous wall of text that is in any way too detailed for a travel guide. As I read it, exceptions are made for obvious very large and popular attractions like Walt Disney World and Angkor Wat, not for any company that happens to be somewhat out in the countryside. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 04:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Cedar Point is immediately adjacent to Sandusky but we still have an article on it because it's a popular attraction that people are looking for separate from going to Sandusky for a visit. Darien Lake is a theme park resort within easy day-trip distance from Batavia (New York), Buffalo, and Rochester (New York), but I wouldn't recommend merging it because it is a separate destination in its own right, not part of a trip to Batavia. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
As I wrote before, I'm not against articles for big theme parks and attractions with millions of visitors occupying large amounts of space. Smaller theme parks, like Tivoli , shouldn't have their own article. This is already common practice. Exceptions should be made on a case-by-case basis and only if they fall within the policy guideline of wiaa. I think the Isha Yoga Centre cannot be compared with big theme parks, a better analogy would be small attractions in the countryside, like a museum or another religious retreat. There is also an Amsterdam Yoga Centre , I don't think that should be a separate district of Amsterdam. And the Onze Lieve Vrouwe van de Besloten Tuin , a similar religious retreat in the countryside of the Netherlands, I don't think that should be its own article. I think the exceptions section was not meant to include these kind of attractions. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
My comment from the previous VFD discussion addresses this point:
While this doesn't meet the standard Project:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions.
If there was no Isha Yoga Centre article and someone was asking where to list it we obviously wouldn't tell them to start a new article, but there is now a complete, useful article about this place and no compelling reason that I see for getting rid of it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
My vote for speedy keep has nothing to do with the article in question, and everything to do with the fact that the vfd was already resolved. In general, the vfd page is not a great place for a nuanced discussion on where to put content—that is better done on the article talk page. And this clearly cannot be a case for deletion, as at the most it would be redirected, if content were to be merged elsewhere. Again, the vfd page is not necessary for such a merge discussion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:26, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
This opens the door for every large resort owner (or whichever marketing company they engage) to create an article about their property, which, instead of being disallowed by Project:What is an article, is apparently now OK. That's not the way I see Wikivoyage, and I find it seriously disappointing that some others do.
Peter, are you saying that your vote to keep this non-article is based on a technicality of delete vis-a-vis merge, rather than the points you originally made?--(WT-en) burmesedays 22:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Nope, my speedy keep vote was based on the fact that this article's vfd already concluded, and that I don't think it appropriate to re-vfd. That just leads to going-nowhere efforts like this eyesore, which will probably languish here for months without purpose. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:53, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Peter, we have Votes for undeletion, which similarly admits that the VfD process isn't immune to mistakes. You yourself have nominated things for undeletion which had previously passed through a VfD process. Aren't mistakes in the other direction just as likely? A sort of "Votes for Unkeeping", if you will? (WT-en) texugo 00:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
(WT-en) Ryan, it's not at all "too extensive to merge" if we cut it back to a level of detail that isn't plainly ridiculous. I could write an article about my arsehole local Catholic church grounds that would have more See and Do items and a larger map than this place, but just because I cast it onto Wikivoyage fully formed with great detail doesn't mean that it should be automatically kept as an article. This is like arguing that a museum should get its own article just because someone went to the trouble of describing in detail what's in each room. It's just far too much information. I also agree with (WT-en) burmesedays argument that it sets a precedent to allow any and all similar business owners to fly into a lot of their own ramblingly detailed articles. And (WT-en) Peter, regardless of the fact that a redirect would remain in its place, I'd say this is more of a vfd in the sense that the majority of this article needs to be flat out deleted, with only a short listing at Coimbatore. Leave all that detailed, overhyped stuff to their website. (WT-en) texugo 22:43, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm not even sure if we should be redirecting companies, the [Wikivoyage:How_to_redirect_a_page|redirecting]] policy does not state anything about that. Should we make a redirect for Ronny's New York Pizza and redirect it to Bangkok/Sukhumvit? Or redirect British Museum to London/Bloomsbury? As far as I know that has not been common practice, but I don't know if and where discussion about this has taken place. I only proposed to redirect as there otherwise might be broken links.
However, more important is I think what Ryan states. It was probably the business owner who created this article from outline to guide status within 24 hours . This is easily done, because its a small sight, so it is quickly at guide status. Because its now guide status, the community accepts this article as being "too long to merge", even though the article rambles on about minor details and none of the sights have any real cultural or historic value. Now the business owner has a full article dedicated to its own business, accepted by the Wikivoyage community, and so immensely detailed that its own website looks bleak in comparison. I consider this the mother of all touts, and it seriously questions the credibility of Wikivoyage as a whole. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 23:52, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
The writer himself admits that he's a visitor/follower there. I think ashrams should be seen like all-in-resorts, just with a strong spiritual and a sight-seeing component. It's hard to judge how many visitors ever make it there, but it's a fact that many of these places have interesting festivities and temples, making it also an attraction to visitors. I tend to agree with Ryan that it seems a waste to delete properly formatted articles, but I wouldn't want to create any kind of policy in favour of ashrams having articles of their own. Their promotional activities are more aggressive than resorts :-) However, I fear for a huge city like Coimbatore (bigger than Amsterdam, for the record) if it would have to absorb all small destinations in the large Coimbatore (region) area. This might be one of the larger ones, or due to its US centre a more popular one among international travellers, but there are at least some 20 other ashrams in that area. As a popular one it could have a get-out listing in Coimbatore perhaps, but I really wonder if the Coimbatore (city) article is a good idea for a full listing.
As an aside: I think fear of redirects is only ever a matter of policies and editors, and can only be helpful to travellers. I wouldn't want to embark on a mission to create them, but I would never delete one either. (WT-en) Justme 05:52, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
  • And now for something completely different (not really completely, but I felt the urge to use the phrase).
I have briefly read through the article and a few impressions may be worth noting;
  1. This is a small place with a lot of detail for it's size in the description.
  2. The policy appears to try to separate things into black and white. Many things are grey. This seems to be one of them, and to me it is towards the non-article end of the scale.
  3. The tone of the article does seem a bit hyped, but I have seen worse.
  4. This does look a bit like the sharp edge at the top of the slippery slope.
  5. Maybe we should be looking at this in a different way. Not as grey, but as yellow. Then it gets its own scale. Perhaps as a travel topic on Religious retreats, or Spiritual retreats if that is considered more appropriate, of India, if there are enough of them, and I suspect there will be, where this could be a sub-article, in much the same way that Scuba diving has national articles like Scuba diving in the British Virgin Islands with sub-articles like Scuba diving in the British Virgin Islands/RMS Rhone. This would leave us with the equivalent Spiritual retreats of India/Isha yoga centre or something similar. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:54, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
I think Peter has it exactly right. The travel topic idea is a fine one. The overview should be linked from India, particular ashrams from the overview and appropriate regional articles. (WT-en) Pashley 23:22, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Suggestion. Since this article has previously survived a VFD nomination, and since there isn't a clear consensus to delete it, I would suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Isha Yoga Centre. Does anyone feel that would be inappropriate, or can this be moved and the discussion continued there? -- (WT-en) wrh2 12:56, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
    Any objections? Going twice... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. I've moved the discussion to Talk:Isha Yoga Centre. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:39, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. A Google search on the article text gives two hits, so this has clearly been copied from elsewhere, and there is no indication that it is freely-licensed and thus re-usable without violating copyright law. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:57, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a Mexican resort that also appears to be suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a resort that also appears to be suspicious as a potential copyvio. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a hotel from an uploader who also uploaded several images that are suspicious as potential copyvios. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Ted Davis images

  • Delete. As the naming of the third image makes very clear, these three images all state "copyright Ted Davis", but he was not the uploader and there is no indication that the images can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted all. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned map image that appears to be a scan with no indication that it can be re-used under the CC-SA license. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned Rio subway map (including timetables) with no clear indication of its original source and whether that source is something that can be re-licensed CC-SA. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Two copies of the same image, both orphaned, and both of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. While there is a stunning lack of images on Wikivoyage of people in fake moustaches wearing sombreros, this one is orphaned and has no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete and Replace it with an image of (WT-en) Ryan in a fake moustache and sombrero, properly credited.(WT-en) texugo 11:40, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. (WT-en) Texugo, a sombrero is proving harder to obtain than expected, but never fear, I am on the job. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

  • Delete. Orphaned image. Similarly to Image:Sombrero.jpg, I find it shocking that this is one of Wikivoyage's only images of an individual sporting facial hair composed entirely of plantlife, but unfortunately this image is orphaned and has no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Two images uploaded here in 2006 without sources. Both look like commercial images, and the first has a tineye hit on ukraine.de that has since been deleted. I believe they are both probable copyvios.

  • Delete both - (WT-en) texugo 11:36, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Delete unless someone can show that they are freely licensed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image of a recognizable individual with no model release provided. Even if there was a model release it's too blurry to be useful in a travel guide. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image of a little kid. No model release and not in any way travel related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image of an individual with no model release and not in any way travel related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned image of an individual with no model release and not in any way travel related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned, the caption says it is "Mike Hill's tattoo", which is in no way travel related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Two copies of the same orphaned image, both of an individual with no model release and not in any way travel related. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:50, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. This is an animated advertising image for a car rental company. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:04, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete. Clearly against image policy. --(WT-en) inas 22:11, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

  • Speedy delete. Orphaned travel agency logo image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:04, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/October_2011&oldid=4924709"