Wikitravel:Votes for deletion

From Wikitravel

Jump to: navigation, search

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.

See also:

[edit] Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following: 

===[[Chicken]]===
* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion. If you are unsure, bring up the issue on the talk page.
  2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion. The {{vfd}} tag must be the very first thing in the article, right at the very top, before everything else.
  3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.
  4. If you're nominating an image for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikitravel... many images are located on Wikitravel Shared, in which case they should be nominated for deletion over there instead.

[edit] Commenting

All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is: 

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

[edit] Deleting, or not

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

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article. However, if the image is being deleted because it has been moved to the shared repository with the same name, do not remove links to the images, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the shared repository.

[edit] Archiving

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root Archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

If the nominated article was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

[edit] July 2008

[edit] Medical tourism

  • Keep i agree fully with Colin
  • Delete. Medical tourism is a reason for travel, not a way of travel. It would be silly to have an "Ink toner travel" article that made suggestions about where on the planet you should go to make deals to get supplies of ink toner. We shouldn't recommend places for non-emergency medical treatment. Secondly, I think the entire issue of non-urgent medical treatment exceeds the scope of our goals. Medical decisions can easily cost lives and we should not involve ourselves in this topic. Given the serious amounts of money involved in this sub-industry, policing ourselves against touts (or even detecting which ones are touts) is just way more effort than it's worth. Let's declare this subject Not Our Problem. -- Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. I agree with Colin's statements above. I think this belongs in the same category as sex tourism and we should not carry detailed information about the topic. There are many other places on the web where people can find this kind of information if they really want. No need to have it here. --Nick 03:38, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep This article is well balanced presenting both the possible benefits and drawbacks of medical tourism. It certainly doesn't "tout" anything. What I think it could benefit from are some contributions from people who actually have travelled abroad for medical care -- someone who actually has underwent a procedure such as LASIK surgery, for example, could probably add some useful comments about how they made a decision to seek treatment overseas. Among the expat community getting medical care outside of one's home country is quite common. Also I don't think this has anything to do with sex tourism so why make the comparison.SONORAMA 11:11, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Just to clarify -- I'm not saying the existing article touts. What I am saying is that if someone adds a clinic in Tijuana that sounds reasonable but is a tout, it will be too hard to detect the problem. It's not like a Bar where one can visit it and immediately say this sucks and then delete it from Wikitravel. -- Colin 15:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – cacahuate talk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
  • A Proposal Colin's doubts on the topic seem to be that anything medical-related is beyond the scope of Wikitravel and the potential harm that could come if someone took bad advice from an article. In other words, the issue is not with the article itself, but rather with what potentially links to it. I say "potentially" because as of right now the article has no links whatsoever.
So my proposal is this. Similar to Wikitravel's policy against links to hotel aggregator booking sites, let's make a policy against recommending specific doctors or clinics in medical tourism articles. Instead, appropriate links to provide might be: Links to the local-country medical association or credentialing body, links to hotels and inns that specialize in recuperative stays for medical tourism patients (such places do exist) and also links to US based international medical accreditors such as the Joint Commission International[1] Medical tourism is a huge and growing trend, and since many travelers come to Wikitravel first for information, it is important that we include information about this aspect of travel here. SONORAMA 20:32, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd be okay with the general discussion and medical association stuff. It wouldn't really work to link to hotels and inns since they tend to be associated with specific physicians that we really can't vouch for. So in other words, I'd be okay with a policy where we never link to a medical service provider of any sort. -- Colin 22:49, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I agree with User:Borndistinction as of course wikitravel aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.
  • Keep. Well! Of course nowadays Medical tourism is so popular that most of the travel related websites do contain information about Medical tourism so why not wikitravel too? Although the article needs to be plunge forward, this could be a very usable one. Barracuda 12:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep. I agree with Colin: medical tourism is a big topic and definitely in scope, but we should keep it high-level, in the same way as we already do in the scuba diving articles: talk about the diving itself, not the operators (and certainly not the individual divemasters). However, large hospitals should still continue to be listed in city articles, the way we list them today. Jpatokal 04:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Obviously. Pashley 19:02, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep. Medical Tourism is huge these days and if Wikitravel aspires to be the definitive online travel guide it is something we should be trying to cover. Jpatokal's point about keeping it high level is something I would agree with. Tarr3n 08:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, seems to be a valid travel topic. Agree with keeping it high-level as mentioned above. JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Quick question—don't we have a disclaimer somewhere absolving Wikitravel & contributors from lawsuits deriving from harm arising from following Wikitravel advice? I can't seem to find that anywhere. --Peter Talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I just happened across it in shared:Copyleft#Things for users to know, and remembered reading this query back here. Perhaps there should be a link titled Disclaimer on the Main Page that links to it? Tarr3n 05:53, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Sorry to have wandered off topic on the vfd page, but that seems like a good idea to me. I'll copy this discussion to Talk:Main Page. --Peter Talk 01:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep but rework before writing more articles on this subject. I'm very hesitant with this article. Per our policies/practices on travel topics, I don't understand what the rationale would be for deleting it—it is a valid way of travel, like tourism, business, studying, and other forms of travel that Wikitravel aims to serve. To respond to the above deletion arguments: 1) Colin's point about "reason" for travel and "way" of travel is well taken, and the existing article might not be the best format to go forward with this, but I'm also hesitant to rule out the subject altogether, since we aim to serve all travelers; 2) the gravity of medical decisions is a good reason to tread lightly on the subject, but I'm not convinced it's a sufficient reason to avoid the subject; 3) As I understand it, we somewhat riskily ruled out sex tourism for subjective reasons—we don't like it (I agree)—but I don't see a pressing moral reason to avoid talking about medical tourism.

    But like others have said, I'm very unsure that we could successfully provide reliable advice about which medical services to use, and this is a way more serious matter than which restaurants or hotels a traveler should patronize. I agree that, at least for the time being, we should keep this strictly to a "meta" discussion of the subject. I'm not convinced that we are yet doing a great job of even that, so lets try and nail that down before wading further into treacherous terrain. --Peter Talk 01:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Medical Tourism in Thailand

  • Delete. For the reasons given above for Medical tourism, and because it is unnecessarily specific to Thailand. Oh, and it's a tout piece, but that could be fixed. -- Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

These articles provide information as to guide travellers looking for destinations and their specialization in order to help travellers choose the country to visit for specific purpose. And medical tourism, golf, spas, diving are very popular ones that people specially travel for now-a-days to enjoy such activities. So i think these are few of the most important articles that people would consider before travelling as wikitravel is the website which guides travellers for travelling at different destinations with any reason of traveller's choice. Wikitravel aims to be a guide, isn't it so? So i strongly disagree to let them be deleted. --Borndistinction 04:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep The article has some good references to medical associations and clinics. The text is indeed a little too positive, almost as if it were copied from a brochure. However this can be improved and more balanced information introduced rather than deleting. And yes, lots of people do go to travel abroad for medical reasons -- it is a very legitimate travel topic. SONORAMA 11:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – cacahuate talk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep As mentioned above, how justifiable would it be to have articles on other reasons to travel in specific countries such as Golf in Australia, but not one on Medical in Thailand. In fact, Med in Thailand is huge in comparison to say Golf in China and the stats in the article prove it. Thai-blogs
  • Keep I agree with User:Borndistinction as of course wikitravel aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.
  • Keep. It is a travel related article whose concept does match today’s requirements. People nowadays look more for this type of articles because they need a variety of information when they research. As wikitravel is a very popular travel guide getting the best travel website award by WEBBY AWARDS for the year 2007 [[2]], people may consider this web too. So I agree for keeping this article. Barracuda 12:51, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Not sure. If it can be merged into the more general Medical tourism article (which should be kept!), then I'd say it should be. I do not know how practical that is, though. If it is not, then keep. Pashley 19:09, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Merge into Medical tourism and Thailand. There's some good information here which it would be a shame to lose, and as I commented above, I agree that Medical tourism is a valid topic.Tarr3n 08:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • If there's anything worthwhile merging, merge as above, else delete. JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. I would prefer to see this in User:Borndistinction's userspace until we figure out how to deal with Medical Tourism. Moreover, as others have said, there are significant touting problems and haphazard formatting preventing this article from appearing legit. And of course, if content can be incorporated into the article above, do that. --Peter Talk 01:18, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Retirement in Thailand

Deciding where to spend your non-travelling retirement is not a travel topic.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Unsure. If we're going to do an article on retirement (and I'm not sure if that's within the scope of Wikitravel) then it should be a general article topic, and not specific to Thailand. Additionally, this article duplicates a significant amount of information from the Thailand article that isn't retirement-specific (currency, weather, etc). At a minimum it should be cleaned-up to be retirement-specific, and if the subject is deemed to be outside of Wikitravel's scope then it should be removed. Let's give it some time and see what happens. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Even though its not a 100% travel topic but it still includes and relate to travelling to other country for specific purpose which is itself considered as a travel topic.

Well whichever country a person would like to live after retirement is his/her choice. But while choosing a country, he/she needs to consider different information, facts and destinations of the country. So well, one of the seventh most famous destination of the world for retirement is Nongkhai, Thailand, which is of course not same as other countries. So, giving information about Retirement in Thailand is providing all the information a person would need to know while choosing Thailand or while travelling to Thailand.

Whereas some facts about the country (currency, weather, etc.) i agree to keep it on Thailand page rather than putting in this article. --Borndistinction 05:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. Retirement is not travel. LtPowers 11:40, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Absolutely, retirement abroad doesn't concern travel. Well, agreed. By the way, were you guys former comical-contestants on American Idol? Thai-blogs
    • The point, my friend, is that the travel one takes while retired is essentially no different from the travel one takes at other times in one's life -- thus our standard travel guides work just fine for retired people. LtPowers 19:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm not sure this article should be kept. However, a general article on Retiring abroad would be valid for much the same reasons that Working abroad and Teaching English are. Thailand would get a prominent place in any such article. Pashley 18:30, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not travel relevant – cacahuate talk 21:51, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Why on Earth would you consider it "Not travel relevant"? Retiring abroad is one way to travel, and a major reason to retire abroad — whether Thailand or Costa Rica or wherever — is to use it as a base for further travel. This is not outside our scope. Wikitravel is a travel guide, not just a tourist guide. Articles like War zone safety or Teaching English are valuable. This may have the wrong scope — perhaps we just need a general Retiring abroad article — and may need other work. but I'd say it is obviously relevant. Pashley 18:44, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
    • "Retiring abroad" is not "one way to travel". "Cruise ship" is one way to travel. "Segway" is one way to travel. "Retiring abroad" is a reason to travel, and we don't generally have articles on reasons to travel. We don't have articles on "Visiting family in Thailand," "Getting away from work in Thailand," or "Business travel to Thailand", and "Retirement in Thailand" is on par with those topics. LtPowers 19:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, but with caveats. I'm not sure we should rule out retiring abroad as a topic on Wikitravel, but I do think we should delete this article. I would tend to consider retiring abroad to not be travel, but then again, that might be too conservative a position—you could consider retiring abroad the "final travel" (although that seems morbid now that I've written it). The reasons for a retirement abroad are broader than the desire to travel, but I still think travel is playing a role in the decision; one might move to Panama just to cut costs, but my hunch is that's just a perk for an adventurous older couple looking to explore the region and to have monkeys in the back yard and a tropical beach out front. I will suggest we delete this article, since it comes across as a tout piece for retiring in Thailand, and duplicates content in a way that ignores our site's basic organizing logic. So to be clear, I lean in favor of a general article on retiring abroad (if someone were to write it!), but not this article. --Peter Talk 02:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Lots of people like to explore and have monkeys and beaches -- what makes retirement significantly different than other reasons for travel? LtPowers 08:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely Keep The article is packed with information and well written. Why delete such a gem? Also, from the comments above it seems that many people have lots of misconceptions about "retirement travel". Fact is, today there's a large class of people who are retiring younger, and with the means to afford international travel and even one or more residences abroad. "Retirement travel" does not mean that a retired persons simply moves to another land never to be heard from again. Rather, lots of people split their time between two or even three countries, sometimes moving with the seasons, other times changing locales to suit their personal, family or medical needs. Essentially, a lot of overseas retirees live a life that combines elements of the expat experience with the tourist experience. It's a huge group -- and in one that in fact includes more than a few Wikitravel contributors. Snub them at our own peril. SONORAMA 11:36, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Diving in Thailand

Redundant vs. Scuba diving, Scuba diving in Asia and specific listings for Thailand.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

By the way, what about Scuba diving in Australia then? isn't that redundant too but it is still acceptable? What's the difference between Scuba diving in Australia and Diving in Thailand? May i know please in case i can adjust my content to match wikitravel.--Borndistinction 03:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep Yes, how can you have an article on Diving/Australia but not Diving/Thailand?! Double standards? .--Thai-blogs
  • Keep It's one of the better travel topic articles we have.
  • Keep I'd sooner see Diving in Southeast Asia and scrap both the Asia and Thailand articles; that strikes me as the right scope. However, I'm not a diver and not volunteering to do the work, so that opinion can be ignored. Pashley 18:45, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. The basics on "diving in Thailand" should be covered in Thailand#Do, and then individual destinations should be covered in those respective articles... we don't need to strip this out of the main Thailand article – cacahuate talk 19:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • How about using the article as a pointer? ie, keep the general info on this page, but the specific info on local articles. In this case, places such as Krabi can be listed as links rather than headings... just throwing out an idea... WindHorse 23:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep or merge with Scuba diving in Asia, it seems reasonable that one might take a trip to Thailand just to scuba dive and so it's a reasonable field of pursuit. JYolkowski 19:48, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep as list of pointers per Windhorse's suggestion. Diving in Asia seems like a much more suspect & redundant article to me, especially since the Asia article is spare & could use the writing in its "do" section. (These travel topic discussions are fun; each contributor always comes out on the same side of things, since we clearly don't agree on how to work travel topics!) --Peter Talk 23:09, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Spas in Thailand

I see nothing in this piece that suggests Spas are any different in Thailand versus anywhere else on the planet. So spas should just be listed in individual articles normally.

  • Delete -- Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep --Sorry Colin, but you are wrong. The most significant difference between spas in Thailand and spas in other parts of the world is that Thai spas emphasize Thai massage. Thai massage is hardly available in most spas in The US, or if it is, it has to be booked in advance. Very very few spas in The US bind spa treatment with Buddhism, unlike Thailand. I think this article has stated quite clearly these major differences. .--Thai-blogs
  • Keep Every country has different cities and provinces specialized in certain different things... am i right? Thailand is also one of them as it specializes in Spas. In this article (as mentioned for Diving in Thailand above) has content specific to the country at which the country is popular for. That doesn't mean that if there are 100 types of spas around the world and Thailand would be specialized in all. So, this article has brought only those spas which are popular in Thailand but not all types.

Moreover, the spa destinations, spa packages, spa programs, Thai spa cuisine provided in this article are all specific to Thailand which the country specializes at. So of course it is not the same as any other country.--Borndistinction 04:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

  • This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:01, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - I have to agree with Colin, Spas should be listed in individual articles. If they are a specific reason to visit the country then surely a section on the Country page is enough. Tarr3n 12:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep I have to agree with the great brains of Tarr3n that there certainly ought to be categories listed in individual categories with a specific reason to visit the country, thus guaranteeing a certain section on the country page. "If they are" (if there are?) countries offering something different oustide of The US, then they out to be deleted, as, who knows? Having a massage elsewhere may be dangerous for one's health. -- Wikitravel = Double Standards? Thai-blogs
    • I don't want to get into a slanging match but I do resent the suggestion that I might be anti Thailand, or (worse?) pro-USA. I've never been to North America and it's not high on my list of places I'd like to visit (though given the current exchange rates between Sterling/Euro against Sterling/Dollar it's starting to look more attractive!). If this vfd had been for spas in USA, Spas in Wales or Spas in Chad I would have given exactly the same opinion. Tarr3n 04:39, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
  • This one needs a lot of work if it stays. See Don't tout and Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Get rid of the touting and the attempt to be a web directory and there might not be much left. That said, I think it is just a "Really bad article" as described in Wikitravel:Deletion_policy, and policy is to fix those, not delete them. Anyone want to do the work of fixing it? Pashley 20:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. We prefer to keep information in the actual guide articles, rather than stripping them out into travel topics.... that only becomes necessary when there's an exceptionally large amount of info to write about them that can't fit in the Thailand article. There's plenty of room there to briefly discuss what sets Thai massages apart from those in other countries, etc. Individual spas should only be listed in the city that they are located in. Definitely delete and merge relevant info into the Thailand article – cacahuate talk 21:48, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete, I'm not sure that this is a field of pursuit in the same way that, say, diving is. Does anyone travel to Thailand for the primary purpose of going to spas there? JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep Spa travel is a huge market including its own magazines, etc. Yes, there is a large class of people who like to travel the world to pampered at various spas. Agreed this might not be everyone's ideal form of travel - but it's definetly an article we shoud keep. If I was looking for a spa or legitimate massage in Thailand, for instance, it would be very nice to have info about them all in one article. SONORAMA 11:35, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Natchez Trace & 600 Antebellum mansions in Natchez, MS

  • Unsure & Delete. The Natchez Trace looks like a pretty straightforward itinerary topic, but is someone planning to write it? And, if not, are we willing to keep the article as is? I think 600 Antebellum mansions in Natchez, MS is a pretty clear "merge & delete" case, (merge to Natchez) but I figured I'd list it here alongside the first vfd. --Peter Talk 21:55, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Los Angeles/Palms

  • Delete or Redirect to Los Angeles/West. This is a subdistrict -- it's part of the Westside district of Los Angeles. I realize LA is a big city, but as far as I know, subdistricts are unprecedented. LtPowers 17:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Redirect. Getting LA straight has been on my list for a loooong time... soon soon... about to start some maps of it soon too! – cacahuate talk 18:40, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Châteaux du Pin

Does not qualify as an article on it's own. Merge with nearest town before deletion? --Nick 04:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Dubai Desert Safari

This is an article about an activity, not a geographical destination. (See article content from before I blanked it.) Not appropriate per Wikitravel:What is an article?. Article was posted by a new contributor, User:Northtours, who may be connected with the operators of that activity. I've offered guidance, see User_talk:Northtours#North Tours LLC listings. JimDeLaHunt 03:13, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Matlock

There is a town called Matlock in Derbyshire. I've never been there, but I know it bears no relation to this farrago of fantasy and b/s.Jnich99 05:09, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Keep and delete erroneous info. WindHorse 05:34, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep all of the info - its all valid and useable info —The preceding comment was added by 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2008 July 30.

    • In that case, perhaps you could provide a link to the Matlock International Airport, for starters? LtPowers 08:53, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Matlock International Airport (MIA) is currently updating its communication streams. There will be a relaunch of the website in the coming weeks. Please try and keep your emotions under-wraps... i know its an exciting time for everyone involved with MIA. —The preceding comment was added by 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs) .

      • Uh-huh. Delete and start over. We don't even need this stuff in the page history. LtPowers 08:53, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. Amusing in places but this is not the place for it. At least this might be the catalyst for a real article about Matlock, which I believe is an interesting spa town. Tarr3n 10:03, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
  • did you really find it amusing? maybe i should get a career in comedy writing... —The preceding comment was added by 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2008 August 3.

    • So, anonymous editor 203.9.151.30, how about you turn that talent to writing a real destination guide to Matlock? It does look like an interesting spa town. JimDeLaHunt 02:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
      • to be honest, the guide is pretty much accurate... there are a few minor discrepancies... they are all minor tho. —The preceding comment was added by 203.9.151.30 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2008 August 6.

  • To be honest, "minor discrepancies" is stretching it to describe statements and references such as "oldest conurbation in England", "earwax in the atmosphere", "Cherbourg to Maidstone ferry", "Matlock International Airport" and the "M1.5" motorway. Enough... joke's over, we've all had a laugh, so maybe you can either make the changes required to turn this into a proper guide, or it should be deleted at the end of the month. Jnich99 10:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep, this portrays an accurate picture of Matlock although some information on the former site of Europe's largest subterranean brothel would also be nice.
  • Keep the page as there is a real town by the name of Matlock. Delete the infoWindHorse 23:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
  • OK, I've made a start.... Jnich99 05:18, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Live from Jordan: Letters Home from My Journey through the Middle East

  • Delete, non-article. Possibly move to user's userspace, if he is the book author. --Peter Talk 17:31, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Karachi/Art galleries

[edit] Image:TourismSearch-99.jpg

[edit] August 2008

[edit] Image:IbajayLocal.jpg, Image:TripToIbajayAnim1.jpg, & Image:TripToIbajayJeep1.jpg

[edit] Whitefield (Scotland)

From the article's talk page: "Whitefield is NOT a city in Scotland. It is the name of a farm. This item should be deleted." I have no opinion on the truth of the statement, but if it's true, then Whitefield isn't a destination and the article should indeed be deleted. Could someone research? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Wikipedia has Whitefield as a location in Scotland's county of Perth, among other places. The location does not have an article. LtPowers 16:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I've certainly never heard of a village called Whitefield in Perthshire. The only item of note I have found with a few minutes digging on Google and Cuil is a pictish Megalith [3] at Balhomie House, Cargill, which was moved there from a Whitefield Farm, or West Whitefield Farm. Looking at the item history page, the anonymous user who first set it up made a reference to Loch Ness (which is not in Perthshire!). There is a tiny village called Whitefield on the east bank of Loch Ness, which does have at least one Guest House (I know because I once did some business for the owners of it). However it is a tiny village (I'm sure there is no shop, cafe or pub) and given that we already have a Loch Ness article I would suggest that any listings there (not that anybody has added any listings in Whitefield) could be fitted into that article. Streetmap [4] lists other Whitefields in Fife, The Borders and Moray, but again they appear to be just farms. So Delete. Tarr3n 06:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Looking at the map again I've remembered that the guest house I visited near Loch Ness was actually in Whitebridge, NOT Whitefield. They're only a couple of miles apart. From the map, it looks like the Loch Ness Whitefield is literally one or two buildings - so this is not a valid article. Speedy delete?

[edit] Carronshore

It's a suburb of Falkirk, which is never likely to require hugecity status. There is no content at all in the article. On the discussion page, Wandering questioned it's validity as an article back in November 2007. Nobody has defended it.Tarr3n 11:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Suburbs aren't part of a city, though, by definition. LtPowers 08:26, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Maybe "suburb" means different things in different parts of the World. I guess in Wikitravel speak I should have described it as a "District" of Falkirk, which would have avoided confusion. In any case, even if there are one or two B&Bs there they really should be listed under Falkirk - Carronshore is not a destination.Tarr3n 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] John F. Kennedy International Airport

  • Delete?. I don't know for sure that this should be deleted. Does it meet our criteria for an airport getting an article? It should be city-sized to do so, with sleep options within the airport, I believe. --Peter Talk 01:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I'd be willing to waive the "sleep there" requirement for the largest, most complex airports, due to their importance to the traveler. LtPowers 08:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, that's the thing—the largest, most complex airports (like Heathrow, Osaka, and O'Hare for example) all do have sleep options. --Peter Talk 13:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
But it's not just the sleeping options that make those articles useful to the traveler. LtPowers 16:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
The biggest International gateway to the United States should not be deleted from Wikitravel. That's a strange criteria that you have that says that the airport must have an onsite on hotel. Atlanta is the biggest aiport in the world for passengers, Memphis is for cargo, NYC-JFK is the biggest gaetway as already said, and LAX is the second largest gateway and it has no onsite hotel. That's a flawed criteria and these airports should not only be here but all airports should ultimately be here as is the case with Wikipedia. I am updating and significantly expanding the JFK article in preparation for it to remain on Wikitravel. QualityControl3533 02:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Those are all reasons why they would qualify for articles on Wikipedia, but we have much different needs here. The question is whether there's much to say that actually serves a traveler and helps on their trip... information about which airlines fly into JFK and how to get to and from it should be covered in the New York City#Get in section, not in a separate article. Random encyclopedic info about JFK should be covered in the Wikipedia article, not on Wikitravel. Which leaves us with sleeping and eating options, and if there are no sleeping options, we don't exactly need an article about JFK that describes the variance between TGI Fridays in Terminal 1 and TGI Fridays in Terminal 2 – cacahuate talk 19:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
The section you linked largely discusses how to get into New York City from the airports, not how to get in to the airports themselves. Also, in addition to "Eat" and "Sleep", the sections for "Get around", "Stay safe", and "Buy" would be different for airport articles than for their surrounding cities. LtPowers 20:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I haven't even looked at NYC's get in section, it may well need expanding and improving, but without a doubt that's the correct place for the info I mention. And for pretty much any airport you could cover all 3 of the other topics you mention in as many sentences or less, if there's even anything relevant to say at all... "Get around" doesn't need a ton of explaining and can easily fit within the city's get in section, "Stay safe" is irrelevant for most airports but could also be covered in the city article if there's something pertinent and for "Buy", see my TGI Friday's example above ;) – cacahuate talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, it just seems really odd not to have an article on one of the largest airports in the United States. I agree it's not much as far as a destination goes, but surely it's a valid travel topic? LtPowers 10:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not so sure... it's only purpose in life is to act as a portal to NYC, and we can describe how to make use of that just fine in the NYC article... beyond that, all else that you would say about it is probably going to be more relevant to the Wikipedia article on JFK rather than the WT one. Would Rough Guide devote a separate guidebook to discussing JFK? Or even devote a chapter to it? I would guess that they would cover it in a paragraph or two in the NYC guide – cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, here's my mode of thinking. When I fly in to someplace new, if I'm going to be needing to find my way around an airport, I find it useful to know the general layout, where the borders between secured/unsecured areas are, where the food is (is there good food in the terminal wings or should I head out to the main concourse), what stores are available (duty free? not?), how big the place is, and any unusual or unique things to watch out for. That seems like useful information for a travel guide. If you think it can all go in the city article, so be it, but it makes more sense to me to have it in an article about the airport. LtPowers 12:08, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
It is often good info, I just think it should be covered quickly in the city article if it's of note, unless and until it's just too unwieldy – cacahuate talk 15:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete – cacahuate talk 22:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete for reasons given by Cacahuate. WindHorse 23:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
So it isn't helpful to know what cities each airline flies to from the biggest airport in the biggest city in the United States in a "travel guide"??? Also, if you already had the initial information without which cities each airline flies to in the NYC article then why did you create an identical offshoot of the GetIn section to begin with? QualityControl3533 01:34, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, the idea is that we should have information on which cities fly into JFK, but that we shouldn't separate that from the NYC article--spreading information across many pages usually makes finding it more difficult, and should only be done when there's just too much information to include in one article (that's why, for example, it's necessary to split city information for NYC across district pages). In my experience, when an airport isn't big enough for its own article (and to this date, we've only done airport articles for the very largest ones in the world, not just the largest within important cities) it can be helpful to wrap a bunch of airport information into a district article (that contains the airport), along with the usual district info. I did this with Chicago/Midway Area—perhaps that might be a useful way to handle JFK? I don't know, since I've only ever used Newark International for NYC. So I'm still abstaining from a vote for now ;) --Peter Talk 17:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
The only reason that this would qualify as an article is if there was too much valid and well written info in NYC#Get in and it was becoming unruly and gargantuan... that isn't the case... and if it someday becomes the case, then we can discuss at Talk:New York City and come up with a solution then, no? Let's solve the problem once it needs solving – cacahuate talk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Let's merge what we have then and continue the expansion that has already started here in the NYC article then instead of just deleting everything. How about let's stop saying what we know is the best move to make and make it! QualityControl3533 22:56, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge with NYC ArticleQualityControl3533 22:59, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Looks like a consensus is forming around a merge & delete redirect solution. Sounds good to me. --Peter Talk 00:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Merge and redirect would be better, wouldn't it? LtPowers 10:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes! --Peter Talk 18:37, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm not a regular here, but I say keep - a lot of people come through JFK but are not visiting NYC. JFK is a major hub for international flights. It would be useful to have information there about food, shops, etc. What about internet access? Also, even though there are no hotels right at the airport, what to do if you get stuck there? There are hotels right around the airport. The Ramada Plaza JFK International Airport is located onsite, and there are several others in the area, convenient to the airport. There is plenty to say here that would be far too detailed in the NYC article. It's the same way that an article about Heathrow Airport can be useful, and I wouldn't want to bother finding that all the same information within the London article. Aude 19:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree, but it looks as though the consensus is that until we have that much information on JFK, then there's no need for a separate article. I can see the reasoning. LtPowers 19:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
      • I like Wikitravel, but wouldn't bother looking in the NYC article for information about JFK (if I was just passing through). I would keep looking elsewhere than Wikitravel. Since so many people just pass through, it makes sense to go ahead and keep the article and improve it. Aude 19:36, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
First, don't worry about being a regular or not, your opinion is always welcome ;) You're right—but that's why we should have the redirect to New York (city)#John F Kennedy International Airport. If you search for JFK airport, that should take you straight to the information in the get in section of NYC, where you should find what you are looking for. --Peter Talk 21:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but there is nothing about food or hotels near JFK in the NYC article. Nor should that be the place to put it. Also, I would seriously forget about wikitravel and just look elsewhere. But if we keep the JFK article, then people can put information useful to people passing through the airport and not visiting NYC. And people might find wikitravel useful and not need to look elsewhere. Remember the traveller comes first. Aude 01:43, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Image:Struve geodetic arc.jpg

This image has three(!) different copyright notices on it and no indications that permission was obtained from any of the copyright holders, so most likely a copyvio. JYolkowski 21:57, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Category:Costa Rica Luxury Rentals

  • Delete. An ad for a rental web site that is neither a category nor a valid article topic. For the contributor - the contribution is appreciated, but please read Wikitravel:Don't tout, Wikitravel:Where you can stick it and Wikitravel:External links to understand the policies on advertising and external links. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:48, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete - I had spotted this one too but I'm not too aware of how Categories work. Should we also delete the associated page, which seems to have pretty much the same content Category:Costa Rica Luxury? Tarr3n 04:44, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete both. Even if it was a valid subject for an article (which it's not), it definitely doesn't belong as a category. LtPowers 20:44, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Bans boracay and associated images

Images: Image:Bans boracay 01.jpg, Image:bans_boracay_02.JPG, Image:bans_boracay_03.jpg and Image:bans_boracay_05.jpg

Not an article, advert and photos have url written on them.

I have speedy deleted work from this user before and would have done the same with this, but thought it might be good for the user to see that others agree before it is deleted --Nick 01:43, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Delete. You left a note on the user's talk page, which the user then deleted, so you've made a good-faith effort to engage the user. The advertising images are clearly against the spirit of Wikitravel:Don't tout. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. For the reasons mentioned above. Tarr3n 04:40, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

→ Speedy deleted. An obvious non-article. Jpatokal 03:21, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Votes_for_deletion"