跳转至内容

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2007

Add links
来自维客旅行

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in April 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/March 2007 or Project:Votes for deletion/May 2007 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

This doesn't appear to be a destination, or a travel topic. -- (WT-en) Mark 11:18, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - Bamanankan is a language and should probably be redirected to Bambara, but I'm not sure what fraces means here. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Photo can be found on several commercial travel sites. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 22:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Thanks for doing this research. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. A French architect, not an article subject per Project:What is an article?. Content might be relevant as a note in the France article, but otherwise this is an encyclopedia article that is relevant to Wikipedia, but not Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. The image is orphaned, is not a travel photo, has no license, contains recognizable people with no model releases cited, and has a disturbingly long and cryptic file name. Most importantly, the guy in the foreground on the right is blinking, which totally ruins the aesthetics. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:21, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • DeleteHold - Do we really need articles for each airline in operation? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 02:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep The same user has done articles for two other airlines, see Travel_topics#By_plane, and I considered entering a VFD for those, since airline articles seem odd to me. But I decided not to bother; they do no harm I can see. For Silverjet, I didn't consider a VFD. They seem to offer an unusual service — business class only flights at good prices — which is worth mentioning. Even if the decision is to delete this, I think we need more info on such airlines, perhaps at First_and_business_class_travel#Business-only_airlines. (WT-en) Pashley 03:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Actually, I did the AA and NW articles (mainly because the Flyertalk people don't know how to edit their own wiki) and had nothing to do with the Silverjet article. - (WT-en) Sekicho 03:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Oops. Since the three all appeared in the Travel Topics index at about the same time, I made a bogus assumption. (WT-en) Pashley 05:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - while it's not officially listed in the criteria for deletion, I don't think it's far off from other things that are, and don't think it really needs to be it's own article. They only fly between Newark and London for one, so can be covered easily within the "Get in" sections on the articles, and mentioned (as it already is now) on the 1st&business travel page mentioned above. The info that's on the page could easily be condensed into a paragraph, a lot of it is more Wikipedia oriented anyhow – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Hold until the discussion I just started on Project:What is an article? reaches some sort of consensus. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I think some of the other articles-about-carriers demonstrate that there is some worth in attempting this experimentally. So let's just let the experiment run. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - though am wondering whether a standard template should be devised for these kind of articles in order to keep them focused on travelers needs and prevent the info from becoming too encyclopedic. For discussion, see: Project:What is an article?#Airlines . (WT-en) WindHorse 02:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept for now, but could be revisited when Project:What is an article? discussion ripens. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted; discussion also saved on Talk:Golf. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Sister article to the above (North weald airfield). ~ 61.91.191.10 17:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Redundant page resulting from an article being created with an incorrect name and then moved to another incorrect name (or something like that). ~ 61.91.191.2 13:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:24, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Ocean City (New Jersey). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article?#What DOES NOT get its own article? ~ 61.91.191.4 05:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article?#What DOES NOT get its own article? - and there's more than one Club Taco, so it's not appropriate to redirect. ~ 61.91.191.2 12:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Contains only an empty 6-section template, has no itinerary-related content ~ 61.91.191.10 14:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Keep. I think this has the potential to be an awesome itinerary. I'll try to work on something, though, I will be working a lot this weekend and de: is about to hit a fairly important milestone. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Leaving an empty page means that someone will rise to the challenge. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. Looks like an excellent itinerary in the making. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Redirects to Washington (D.C.) in four days ~ 61.91.191.10 14:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to the previous candidate, which was kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Now an empty page. ~ 61.91.191.10 17:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Appears to be an old and now redundant region article ~ 61.91.191.8 07:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Redirect to Piney Woods? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Reasonable idea, as I can imagine Googling on East Texas and getting to this page. Are they really equivalent, though? I don't know much about east Texas. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
They're not exactly equivalent (this area this article covers includes our Gulf Coast region as well) but it's a logical place to send someone looking for "east Texas". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to Piney Woods. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Body of water, does not warrant article as described in Project:Bodies of water -- (WT-en) Tim 18:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I propose getting rid of the arondissements template at the bottom of all the Paris pages... is it really needed? We don't do that for any other city districts, I think them being listed in the districts section on the Paris page is sufficient... any objections? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • The reason (I think!) we have this template is because we can - in Paris the arondissements are well defined and recognised districts and as such we dont have to keep adding new district pages to the city, whereas London, for example, has got a really hazy list of districts that we're constantly revising and updating, which would make having a little district template there a complete pain. Having said that, I think the bar is of little use to the average traveller (for example, which one's got the Eiffel Tower in?) so I'd say delete it and improve the get out section in each of the arrondissement articles, to say which arrondissements are nearby and what the main attractions are in them, plus maybe also say which arrondissements the really famous attractions are in. -- (WT-en) Tim 07:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Good plan. We've been pretty good about keeping the articles uncluttered and I think this just opens the door to more things like it. Between the "Districts" section on the main city page and the "Get out" section on the districts, I think we've got it covered without the extra box – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Not an article, not sure what (if anything) would be a good redirect. (WT-en) Maj 22:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Per Project:What is an article?#What DOES NOT get its own article? ~ 61.91.191.8 13:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Redundant stub; about 20 countries have them, so not redirectable. ~ 61.91.191.11 05:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Will be a redundant redirect if/when Departement is deleted. ~ 61.91.191.11 05:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


See User talk:(WT-en) Blacksapphire#Eglistathr and http://www.getty.edu/vow/TGNServlet?english=N&find=Eglistathr&place=&page=1&nation= ~ 61.91.191.10 16:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

URL/watermark on the image suggests it's probably a copyvio ~ 61.91.191.10 04:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete per Project:Copyleft. No license specified, and the logo indicates that the image came from another web site somewhere. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. This is the only non-article status category, and is not useful enough to warrant keeping around. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

No longer relevant as we now do have an Earth guide as an April fool joke. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete - Not an article, not really a travel topic as all the info is covered in Grand_Canyon#Do. -- (WT-en) Tim 12:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure this doesn't quailfy as an article. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 21:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

"a simplified language made up of elements of two or more languages, used as a communication tool between speakers whose native languages are different." ~ 61.91.191.8 15:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Redirect to Tok Pisin phrasebook; this is much the best known pidign, an official language in PNG, so I'd say make it the target. It already mentions related languages; turn those into links if we develop phrasebooks for them. (WT-en) Pashley 22:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I suspect that best known depends on what geographical area you are from. The first time I heard about Tok Pisin was during this discussion and I suspect if you ask anyone in Southern Africa what the best known Pidgin language is, they will answer Fanakalo. I also doubt that the Tok Pisin phrasebook will be able to list Fanakalo (English/Afrikaans/various African languages) or Russenorsk (Russian/Norwegian) as related, since Pidgin languages are almost always regional and do not share a lot in common with each other. Redirecting Pidgin to one specific language does not seem to make sense. See the pidgin entry for more information. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 04:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
    • 重定向至短语手册列表；重定向至Tok Pisin语的意义，就好比让所有罗曼语系语言都指向西班牙语。 (WT-en) Texugo 05:09, 2007年4月11日 (EDT)
    • 如果（且仅如果）那里列出了其他皮钦语，我不会反对重定向到列表而不是Tok Pisin语。我并不清楚那里是否有其他皮钦语。我错过了什么吗？ -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:56, 2007年4月11日 (EDT)
  • 我不认为（目前）还有其他皮钦语。我也不反对重定向到Tok Pisin语，我只是觉得重定向到更通用的内容更有意义。迟早会添加另一种皮钦语。 --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:06, 2007年4月11日 (EDT)

没有从任何地方链接过来，没有内容，是由一个外部链接垃圾邮件发送者创建的。 ~ 61.91.191.4 23:14, 2007年3月30日 (EDT)

  • 删除 - 伦敦已经分区域了，如果需要创建新的区域，用户应该在讨论页讨论……这个区域是否已经包含在现有的某个区域内？ – (WT-en) cacahuate 讨论 00:36, 2007年3月31日 (EDT)
  • 保留。这是一个有效的城镇/区域，只需要添加内容……伦敦/西南有一个指向未创建的伦敦/里士满的条目，这指的是同一件事。 -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:13, 2007年4月18日 (EDT)
  • 保留。Daniel的论点说服了我。是否应该修改伦敦/西南的文章以指向此文章？ -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:51, 2007年4月19日 (EDT)

结果：已保留。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:53, 2007年4月23日 (EDT)

结果：已重定向。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:10, 2007年4月23日 (EDT)


算了，我已经将其更改为重定向至加里宁格勒州。 --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald 讨论 11:12, 2007年4月10日 (EDT)
已更改为重定向至阿穆尔州。 --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald 讨论 11:12, 2007年4月10日 (EDT)

不是文章，应该在伊维萨或度假胜地文章中介绍。 -- (WT-en) Tim 19:03, 2007年3月30日 (EDT)

  • 删除 – (WT-en) cacahuate 讨论 00:36, 2007年3月31日 (EDT)
  • 讨论先。我可以想象滑翔伞作为一个有效的旅游主题，尽管它目前的文章内容。如果有人认为它可以写成一个主题性文章，让我们这样做，而不是删除。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:05, 2007年4月11日 (EDT)

结果：已删除。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:50, 2007年4月23日 (EDT)

已被Special:Log/delete取代 ~ 61.91.191.10 18:03, 2007年3月29日 (EDT)

  • 保留。是的，它已经过时了，但它包含有用的存档信息。保留它没有任何坏处。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:45, 2007年4月23日 (EDT)

结果：已保留。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:37, 2007年4月27日 (EDT)


  • 删除，根据项目：什么是文章？。给作者：请也阅读项目：不要宣传。感谢您的编辑，但请尝试使用分享旅行建议的语气，而不是广告。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 16:22, 2007年4月29日 (EDT)
    • 更新：根据以下内容，快速删除对我来说是可以的，但我要求至少等待一两天，以防原作者返回。看到带有VFD标签的文章，是一种告知贡献者其贡献受到赞赏但格式不完全正确的方式，而如果用户返回发现文章已丢失，他们可能会简单地重新创建它。 -- (WT-en) Ryan • (讨论) • 18:21, 2007年4月29日 (EDT)
  • 删除。快速删除？ -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:26, 2007年4月29日 (EDT)
  • 快速删除。绝对不是文章。 - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:34, 2007年4月29日 (EDT)
  • 已删除 - 快速删除，不是文章 --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 02:28, 2007年4月30日 (EDT)
尽管我有其他重定向，但这篇文章仍然应该被删除——它是一个不再符合新层级的废弃地区，也不对应任何新地区。 --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald 讨论 11:12, 2007年4月10日 (EDT)
  • 删除 - 非文章 -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 19:58, 2007年4月11日 (EDT)
  • 删除，在了解西雅图的人决定内容是否值得迁移到那里之后。在我看来不值得，但值得问一下。 (WT-en) Pashley 04:34, 2007年4月22日 (EDT)
  • 西雅图已经有一些住宿了。根据文章，这个地方有捕鼠器，而且有猫尿味。可能不值得提及。 -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:16, 2007年4月24日 (EDT)

用户(WT-en) Dingle的几张图片

[]

上传了几张没有肖像权许可的公众人物图片。它们对旅行者来说也没有什么用处。也从未回复过他讨论页上的留言。

还有Image:Ventry1a.jpg，它是Image:Ventry1.jpg的重复。 -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 15:16, 2007年4月10日 (EDT)

这篇文章不应该存在，它应该放在城市页面下。 (WT-en) amssports06, 2007年4月11日

  • 此景点的资料已移至迪尔伯恩的文章，我已将此页面重定向至该文章。这应该不需要进一步处理。 - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:27, 2007年4月11日 (EDT)
  • 删除，但了解新加坡的人可能想检查一下是否有任何信息可以重用 --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:29, 2007年4月17日 (EDT)
  • 删除。这是新加坡/小印度的一条街道，但不是很有名，甚至不需要重定向。其中“信息”只是附近一家酒店的伪装广告。 (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:42, 2007年4月23日 (EDT)

结果：已删除

删除 - 除了一个公司的赤裸裸的广告，文章名称就是他们的网站名称。 (WT-en) Texugo 00:41, 2007年5月2日 (EDT) 结果：已快速删除 --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:58, 2007年5月2日 (EDT)

删除。 - 同Real race。 -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 01:16, 2007年5月2日 (EDT) 结果：已快速删除 --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:58, 2007年5月2日 (EDT)

检索自“https://wikivoyage.cn/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/April_2007&oldid=4924052”
© 2026 wikivoyage.cn. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License.