跳转至内容

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/November 2007

Add links
来自维客旅行

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

This is actually a commercial water theme park, one of several in the area, and you can't stay there-- no accommodations. The park is only open until 5:30 or 6 PM depending on the time of year, and the article originated most likely from a park employee, with many copyright violations including copyrighted photos from the company's site and very sales-y language. A similar article was created around the same time on es: and has long since been deleted.

  • Delete - The theme park already has mentions in 4 other nearby destinations' articles.(WT-en) Texugo 04:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete' - Agree. Should have coverage from elsewhere. (WT-en) OldPine 09:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep I have been there, it is like a Mexican version of Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve near Honolulu (been there too). It is a ecological theme park. It has been a few years since I was there, but I think you can sleep there, or at least camp very near by. I would suggest to anyone in that area, especially if you have children, visit. It is on the road to Tulum, from Cancun and heavily traveled by tourists. (WT-en) 2old 10:32, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Their website suggests no on-site accommodations and the park is within taxi distance from both Cancun and Tulum, which to me makes it a non-article. The only commercial theme park articles we have so far are Disney resorts, which are huge theme park complexes with accommodations. I don't believe this park measures up. The activities on offer there can easily be summed up in a brief paragraph on the Cancun page. The rest of it is just commercial nonsense, i.e. "Xel-ha is a theme park created by Mayan gods, bla bla bla". (WT-en) Texugo 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
I thought about this last night. I agree that it is a non-article. My first thought was don't delete this. It should be merged with Mayan Riviera or Riviera Maya which both exist on Wikivoyage and are the same place. And, those should be merged. So, my vote is changed to Merge and redirect if approptiate. By the way, the area was created by the Mayan Gods, it is where they vacationed. If you visit, you will understand why. (WT-en) 2old 09:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
That sounds right to me. Merge and redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 20:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I have moved all that I think is appropriate to Mayan Riviera, Riviera Maya can be deleted and redirected, if you like. (WT-en) 2old 12:18, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Xel-Ha and Riviera Maya Redirected to Mayan Riviera --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:34, 11 November 2007 (EST)


Pasted text from Wikipedia.

  • Kept after blanking... if it's a valid place, just remove the copyvio text and leave it as an outline, no need to delete  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 13:05, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - the Wikipedia article says it's a town with a population of 9000+ ~ 203.189.134.3 07:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept after WP content was replaced by blank template --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:38, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Not sure if this can be speedy-deleted or not. It clearly shows people and so is in violation of the image policy I believe. Is there a way to use this picture--how does one go about submitting model releases, or do we even get into that? -- (WT-en) OldPine 10:02, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Speedy Delete. This thing about people in photo's is making me goofy. When I first started contributing to Wikivoyage, people in photo's was pretty much taboo. If we have a clear policy on this, I can not find it. If we have a clear/black and white policy, it may do away with one issue that continues to be an issue for conflict within the community and gets us nowhere. I suggest we adopt a policy like:Photo's that contain recognizable images of people are not acceptable for Wikivoyage/Wikishared and will be deleted. The only exception would be on a Contributor page, where a photo/photo's of the contributor is permissable. Forget the model release. The only problem it would create for me is that most of my photo's prior to Wikiworld contain people. I also have some great photo's, that I think would be great for Wikivoyage, and I have submitted some that are borderline, but I think it is time to end this conflict, everyone wants to push the line just a bit further. (WT-en) 2old 12:22, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I wouldn't speedy something like this, if there's any doubt then let it go through the vfd process. It also give the user a chance to see it here and understand why. In which case they might want to just put it on their userpage. If they haven't added it to a userpage by the time the 14 days is up, then I say we go ahead and delete it. 2old, I know your struggling with the image policy at the moment, but it really isn't all that unclear... if a person/persons are the main subject in a photo, then it's not ok. If they are tiny and in the background and not the focus of the picture, then it can probably slide. Like many other things in life, we have to use our judgement. Slapping a hardcore rule on WT forbidding any persons in any photo from any angle even in shadow and from behind doesn't do us any good... if there's doubt about a photo, vfd it and see what the community has to say. 99% of the photos uploaded here are fine... and occasionally we have to discuss the other 1%, that's inevitable.. we can't make crazy rules just to avoid having to have discussions :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 17:13, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, I had not thought about forbidding any persons in any photo from any angle even in shadow and from behind, just recognizable. And if you read, just a few VFD's up, you will see disagreement between some rather seasoned contributors on this subject. I did not just invent this idea, it was the policy when I first started submitting photo's. At that time I thought it to be a bit restrictive, but adapted to it (sorta). Anyway, It will not make or break my day either way. I thought it time to make it clear, as it seemed to be in the past. If the present policy continues, it will open the door for some of my questionable photo's, and then we can discuss them here. No problemo. (WT-en) 2old 10:44, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:52, 11 November 2007 (EST)

"Inti Wara Yassi is volunteer non-profit organization from Bolivia" ~ 203.189.134.3 10:27, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)


Wanted to develop it, but it turned out there is hardly anything attractive. (WT-en) LukeWestwalker ⇔ 11:53, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

If it is a real place (as World66 thinks, according to link above) and conceivable (even if unlikely) destination for a traveller (not only for a tourist, but including people who might have work there), then keep. Throw in a template, leave it as a stub and perhaps someone will fill it in. Lack of interesting sights is not a reason for deletion. It may be a reason to ignore it, leave it as a stub, but that's a different thing (WT-en) Pashley 23:07, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Keep - (WT-en) OldPine 23:31, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Keep. This seems clear. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:20, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:59, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Seeming copyvio from http://www.kohtaoeasydivers.com/kt_sd_dive.htm (press 'Skip Intro' and it's then presented as part of the flash animation). The image was used as part of a link to that exact site from Ko Tao (see an old revision), so it could be the shop itself, but it could also be a an overly helpful editor. There's nothing on the image page to explain and the editor has only been here for that one image. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:27, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Copyvio from tourism website, and has annoying text on the image. Cool image though. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:15, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Conflicts with Project:What is an article? ~ 203.189.134.3 04:56, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Advertisements. ~ 203.189.134.3 05:43, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:20, 11 November 2007 (EST)

No such place that I can find, previous content was graffiti. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. -- 24.147.175.14 14:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - Wikipedia doesn't have an article for it, but confirms that Avatele is a village of 150 people in the southwest part the island of Niue. (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:25, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Upload says they are flags from Karshkavinia. Couldn't find where such a place exists. -- 24.147.175.14 14:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:28, 11 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We generally frown upon images of businesses, and this is just a pic of the interior of a cafe. Also it's licensed as PD-old, which seems unlikely... it's in color, for one ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:40, 11 November 2007 (EST)


Advertisements / .psd ~ 203.189.134.3 03:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Topic is too general, material is already covered in other articles, text was copyvio of http://english(dot)china(dot)com. (blocked by spam filter) It could be redirected to either Fundamentals of flying or Tips for flying, but seeing as how Air travel doesn't even exist as a redirect, I don't see why the less-common term Air transport should exist.

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Colva 2.JPG, Image:Calangute 2.JPG, Image:Vagator.JPG, and Image:Calangute 1.JPG are all violations of our privacy policy and should be deleted. They also lack licensing info, but I presume that they were taken by the uploader. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:12, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Delete. While legally these photos are OK since they don't meet the legal definition for recognizability (no one is clearly identifiable), they don't meet the guideline of avoiding pictures of people. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Unsure Based on this excerpt from image policy However, in public spaces people give up a certain degree of privacy, which means that they can be photographed (and cannot stop the process). At Wikivoyage, this is generally interpreted conservatively to mean that identifiable people in a picture should be peripheral to the picture content. For example, you can upload a picture of a crowded market or plaza, as long as you could take out or substitute any given person in it without materially affecting the picture. If the license is ok. (WT-en) 2old 16:30, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. nobody is really recognizable, and people should have an idea of what to expect at these beaches... an early morning shot of an empty beach would be a little misleading – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:13, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep (except maybe the last). They're all pictures of public beaches with random people in the background, none of whom are particularly recognizable or important, so the privacy policy doesn't apply. And particularly in India it'd be quite misleading to present a beach as beind devoid of people...! (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:01, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Conflicting policy. I pasted the policy for images above, then read the privacy policy if an image contains a subject that is identifiable, a model release is needed. These two policies seem to conflict. I have to plead guilty of posting an image with people in it, I also have to plead insanity for waiting 20 minutes or more to shoot subjects without people in them. I can remember earlier discusions when sillouetes of people were deleted and anything that had people in it was gone, gone, gone. I have no problem contibuting a photo with people in it and assuming the liability. However, if I am not in compliance with WT policy, that means something different and I like all contributors need to comply. As I remember (WT-en) Evan was one who was not in favor of people or sillouetes. I would appreciate his seasoned views on this. (WT-en) 2old 14:19, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't see it as conflicting statements, it isn't a black and white issue, and it's hard to reduce it to one... I think it's just giving you a general idea of the law and how WT conservatively interprets it... personally i think as long as a person isn't the main focus of the picture then you are fine, in my opinion – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:24, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
My beef with these images, regardless of privacy concerns, is that there are tourists in the foreground, despite the fact that they are not the subject of the image. People in the background of a photo of a crowded beach are appropriate, but the foreground (and recognizable) tourists make the images seem unprofessional for use in a travel guide. For what it's worth, the uploader has already voiced a desire to take and reupload photos of the same beaches which will be fully in compliance with our "people in images" policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:25, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted as per our guilty until proven innocent policy. This vfd has been around longer than it deserves and I'm sure we can get better photos of those places. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 00:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)

No sign of a model release. It also probably fufills the other argument for not having photos of people on Wikivoyage: it's just not a very interesting illustration of travel (it was used on Ko Tao, but ascents/descents look like that on pretty much every decent visiblity dive). (WT-en) Hypatia 02:16, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - due to lack of license more than anything else --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:50, 19 November 2007 (EST)

More borderline on model release (not sure the person is identifiable), but they're still the primary focus of the picture. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete - due to lack of license more than anything else --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:57, 19 November 2007 (EST)

More a single site or monument than a park, I think. Does not appear to have any accommodation options. Previous text was copyvio wikipedia.

  • Delete - This site can adequately be covered in the region article or nearest city article.(WT-en) Texugo 00:07, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Utah. I've gone ahead and done the redirect, but will leave this vfd here for a bit longer in case anyone disagree. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect. It would be good to keep the redirect page, for the sake of those who've heard of the NHS and want to visit it, but don't know what town to use as a base of operations. The answer, btw, is Brigham City, which is not hopelessly small -- population over 15,000 -- and certainly qualifies as a destination. The redirect should be amended to point to this article iff it gets created. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:13, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Utah (for now). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Beaches, lighthouses, and boat landings don't get their own articles. I moved the info to the Bristol (Maine) article.

Outcome: All deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. It's been around for several months, no pages link to it, and it appears to be directly copied in from Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 19:05, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Thesse things are a lot more trouble on Wikipedia than they're worth, I'd suggest delete'ing this. (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:01, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 00:12, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:05, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:08, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:14, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. Licensed as pd-old, but doesn't look it... also looks like a helicopter shot... I seriously question its pd-ness without a source given – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:16, 21 November 2007 (EST)


  • Delete. We need current images of landmarks in most cases, not faded old ones WT is a travel guide, leave the history to Wikipedia – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Licensed as pd-old, but looks unlikely... is also too small to be useful here, and almost looks as if it they were taken from a tourism website – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:25, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:28, 21 November 2007 (EST)

  • Delete.Redirect to Greenland According to Wikipedia and Jpatokal it's tiny, only been visited once in the history of mankind, and isn't really a practical destination unless you're part of a professional expedition, etc. You can't sleep there, eat there, or do much of anything there – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:11, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
  • 重定向至 北格陵兰，并将任何相关信息放入该文章。参观 ATOW1996 的唯一可能方式是作为大型探险活动的一部分。当然，一片冰海中的一块 10 米长的岩石露头不需要单独的文章。至少在他们那里建一个迪士尼乐园之前是这样。 (WT-en) Texugo 2007年10月29日 01:48 (EDT)
真是冰雪奇缘！ – (WT-en) cacahuate 讨论 2007年10月29日 02:08 (EDT)

结果：重定向至 北格陵兰。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月22日 12:21 (EST)

  • 删除。看起来很像抄袭，很可能是来自莱辛官方网站，尽管上传者将其许可为公共领域-旧。 – (WT-en) cacahuate 讨论 2007年10月31日 01:33 (EDT)
  • 删除。 - (WT-en) OldPine 2007年11月1日 15:23 (EDT)
  • 保留。图像在莱辛的海报和横幅上是免费公开提供的。我宁愿认为莱辛旅游局远非将其视为侵犯版权，而是认为它是有效信息。
  • 除非版权所有者将其发布在知识共享许可下，否则我们无法使用它。使其可用并不构成发布。如果您认为应保留，请向他们索取发布。 (WT-en) Pashley 2007年11月4日 18:20 (EST)

结果：均被删除。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月22日 12:28 (EST)

根据 项目：什么是文章？ 61.7.183.4 2007年11月1日 00:01 (EDT)

  • 删除 - (WT-en) Texugo 2007年11月1日 00:12 (EDT)
  • 删除。 - (WT-en) OldPine 2007年11月1日 15:23 (EDT)
  • 保留。将旅行社和旅游运营商列在维客旅行上是否合适？旅行者不经常对寻找旅行社和旅游运营商感兴趣吗？ 欢迎，企业主 鼓励企业添加列表。我相信我遵循了 要避免的词语 和 不要宣传 的指南。我承认它应该更长，但这不应成为删除的理由。 (WT-en) David-journeys.travel 2007年11月2日 08:43 (EDT)
    • 旅游运营商通常在目的地文章中受到欢迎，只要它们是主要供应商而不是转售商。想想看，这很有意义：人们不太可能通过搜索您的公司名称找到您，但他们可以通过阅读（例如） 南极洲 来了解您。 (WT-en) Jpatokal 2007年11月5日 10:38 (EST)
  • 删除。感谢您参与此过程，但 项目：什么是文章？ 优先于一切。我们没有关于旅游运营商的文章。您可以将该文本放在 User:(WT-en) David-journeys.travel 上，但仅此而已。 (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 2007年11月2日 08:55 (EDT)
  • 我们是否应该在 项目：什么是文章？ 上添加“旅游运营商”作为不应拥有自己文章的列表？ (WT-en) David-journeys.travel 2007年11月5日 09:24 (EST)
    • 嗯，经验法则是，除非你能睡在那里，否则它就不是目的地……但当然，我已将其添加以供完整性。 (WT-en) Jpatokal 2007年11月5日 10:38 (EST)
  • “旅游运营商”旅行主题文章或一组较小的文章，“亚洲旅游运营商”及其同类文章是否可行？我可能会说对于像南极洲这样偏远的地方来说是可行的，但那可能已经在南极洲文章中涵盖了。我不确定为例如“美国旅游运营商”写文章是否是个好主意，但似乎值得一问。它将为这位贡献者解决两个问题。它提供了一个放置他的材料的地方，而且一个运营商的信息不足以写成一篇文章；它作为一篇较大文章中的一个项目符号点就足够了。 (WT-en) Pashley 2007年11月14日 20:36 (EST)
我将断然地说不……那将打开一个相当大的潘多拉盒子。你能想象“加德满都的旅游运营商”会是什么样子吗？天哪。我的意见是，列出旅游运营商应该保留在需要导游或者因为高风险情况而非常需要导游的时候……但我知道其他人有不同意见，所以……这就是我的两分钱 – (WT-en) cacahuate 讨论 2007年11月15日 00:24 (EST)

结果：删除。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月22日 12:31 (EST)

已上传至 共享。 (WT-en) WTDuck2 2007年11月12日 15:16 (EST)

结果：删除；图像现已在维客旅行共享。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月22日 12:38 (EST)

支持已移除短语以符合黑名单 不是维客旅行的任务 64.72.125.6 2007年11月23日 10:55 (EST)

  • 删除。维客旅行不应支持非法和不道德的活动。接下来会是什么？廉价妓女的旅行建议，对儿童虐待者，妇女贩卖或毒品贩卖。因此，关于同性恋的文章也必须删除 !!! 72.9.247.74
  • 让我们排除冒犯性的要求。 保留；这是一个有效的旅行主题。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月25日 11:11 (EST)
  • 保留 有效的旅行主题。不确定接下来会是什么。 --(WT-en) OldPine 2007年11月25日 11:21 (EST)
  • 删除 不是一个有效的旅行主题，因为它涉及到非法活动（在许多国家），并且会对社会产生威慑作用 (WT-en) 4711 2007年11月25日 12:43 (EST)
  • 保留。首先，任何人提出的删除理由都与我们的 删除政策 无关。其次，这是一个有效的旅行主题，维客旅行不是唯一这样认为的网站。Orbitz 和 Travelocity 等其他旅游网站也努力为同性恋旅行者提供便利。 (WT-en) PerryPlanet 2007年11月25日 14:16 (EST)
  • 保留。如果没有与删除政策相关的理由，文章就不会被删除。关于非法活动的政策规定，当某项活动在某些地方非法时，我们应将该信息告知旅行者以确保其安全；这并不意味着我们避免向旅行者提供有用信息，而这正是本文档所做的，符合维客旅行的使命。 --(WT-en) Peter 讨论 2007年11月25日 15:23 (EST)
  • 保留。删除理由无效。 --(WT-en) Morph 2007年11月25日 15:29 (EST)
  • 删除。 性旅游 在维客旅行中被禁止。显然，卖淫和其他已移除短语以符合黑名单 如同性恋一样，没有区别。如果卖淫的定价信息被禁止，那么同性恋活动也不应被支持！！！ 69.89.21.75 2007年11月25日 15:41 (EST)
我们的性旅游政策规定，我们不会提供有关实际进行性活动的地点/方式的信息。这类信息不是同性恋旅行指南中所包含的内容。相反，其中包含关于同性恋非法的地方以及同性恋旅行者最受欢迎的地方的信息。 (WT-en) PerryPlanet 2007年11月25日 15:58 (EST)
  • 保留，话题有效，删除提名听起来极其恐同。 --(WT-en) The Yeti 2007年11月25日 16:04 (EST)
  • 保留，基于个人意见的审查是荒谬的。我不认为我们应该燃烧如此多的恐龙汁，但我将支持任何人创建关于飞行的文章的权利。我认为世界人口过剩，我们应该少生孩子，但我会支持任何人创建如 伦敦亲子游 等文章的权利。我认为 中国 拥有糟糕的人权记录，他们应该废除共产主义，但我将支持他们在这里拥有文章的权利。 同性恋旅行 也一样 --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 2007年11月25日 16:28 (EST)
  • 保留。我们不必纠结于哪里是搭讪帅哥的最佳地点，但关于同性恋者可能被射击的地方以及他们聚集的地方的信息是有意义的。此外，关于卖淫，信息对于那些想避免该活动、避开红灯区或同性恋酒吧的人来说也是有用的。 (WT-en) Pashley 2007年11月25日 19:33 (EST)
  • 保留。同性恋旅行者是一类可识别且定义明确的旅行者。 --(WT-en) Wandering 2007年11月25日 20:29 (EST)
  • 快速保留。匿名破坏者将此添加到 VFD 页面应该是被视为破坏行为……让我们停止喂养巨魔 – (WT-en) cacahuate 讨论 2007年11月25日 22:56 (EST)
  • 保留，当然。虽然很高兴有这么多匿名用户以相同的半文盲水平参与政策制定。 (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 2007年11月26日 00:59 (EST)
  • 删除 明显违反了 性旅游政策 (WT-en) 009 2007年11月26日 17:11 (EST)
    • 声称其明显违反规定并不能使其成为事实。性旅游政策是关于卖淫及其类似活动，而这并不是被提议文章的主题。性旅游政策的撰写者也为被提议的文章做出了贡献，这一点应该能让你意识到被提议的文章并没有违反政策。 -- (WT-en) Colin 2007年11月26日 19:11 (EST)
  • 保留。提名人未能根据“细则”提出有效提名。提名人需要引用删除政策的理由，而不是仅仅说他不喜欢。哦，而且每个人只能投一票，所以目前只有一票反对。另请参阅 同性恋者的朋友不应被允许编辑文章。 -- (WT-en) Colin 2007年11月26日 19:11 (EST)
  • Cacahuate 是对的。这是一个 快速保留。请参阅政策讨论 Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Two_weeks_to_ten_days.2C_maybe_less.3F。我将现在关闭它。 (WT-en) Pashley 2007年11月28日 05:39 (EST)

结果：保留。

不是文章。 --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 2007年11月13日 15:22 (EST)

  • 删除。同意。 --(WT-en) OldPine 2007年11月13日 15:46 (EST)
  • 重定向至 阿姆利则。这是一个著名景点；人们可能知道它但不知道城市。将其视为 泰姬陵 的重定向。 (WT-en) Pashley 2007年11月13日 20:53 (EST)
  • 重定向至阿姆利则 – (WT-en) cacahuate 讨论 2007年11月13日 20:58 (EST)
  • 重定向。人们可能会寻找以此为名的文章，即使它不完全是一个目的地/你可以睡的地方，所以帮助他们导航。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月15日 10:00 (EST)

结果：重定向至 阿姆利则。 -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月28日 15:16 (EST)

违反图像政策，照片中有可识别的人物。 -- (WT-en) OldPine 2007年11月12日 20:48 (EST)

结果：删除。 (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 2007年12月1日 19:07 (EST)

结果：删除。 (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 2007年12月1日 19:07 (EST)

广告，与目的地/主题/等无关。我曾想快速删除它，但有疑问时，请遵循流程…… -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 2007年11月14日 18:05 (EST)

结果：删除。 (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 2007年12月1日 19:07 (EST)

检索自“https://wikivoyage.cn/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2007&oldid=4919895”
© 2026 wikivoyage.cn. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License.