Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/July 2012

File:Melbourne.jpg

 * Low-res image that's found in higher resolutions all over the web. See TinEye results  -- (WT-en) LtPowers 10:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Delete - (WT-en) texugo 10:19, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:Wwoofers.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy. Additionally, with no source or license specified, at only 240x137, and with no real indication of what this is supposed to illustrate, it's not a particularly good travel image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:LaMoulineMainRoom.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy. Additionally, with no source or license specified, at only 240x169, and with no real indication of what this is supposed to illustrate, it's not a particularly good travel image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:LaMoulineMainFireplace.jpg

 * Delete. Image is apparently of a hotel lobby fireplace, so delete per Image policy.  It's only 240x163 and doesn't specify source or author, so would be a questionable addition even if it wasn't of a business. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:LaRoulotte.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy. Additionally, with no source or license specified, at only 240x184, and with no real indication of what this is supposed to illustrate, it's not a particularly good travel image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:Frontoutside2008.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy - orphaned image of a Comfort Inn. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:18, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:Bungalows-homepage small.jpg

 * Delete per Image policy - orphaned image of a hotel. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:16, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:133.JPG

 * Delete. Orphaned image of a Chinese(?) lion.  No indication of source or of what this is supposed to illustrate, so unless someone wants to de-orphan it delete per Project:Deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:52, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

File:CornigliaPainting.jpg

 * Delete. This is a now-orphaned image of a painting of a village.  Delete per Image policy ("Wikivoyage does not use montages, or really any type of image other than maps or simple photography."). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:12, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:10, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Template:Delete and Category:Speedy deletion candidates

 * Delete. I'd argue these should be deleted for three reasons:
 * As noted in Pub I think that Template:Vfd is sufficient, and the corresponding VFD nomination can then suggest speedy deletion if appropriate. Note that the existing Project:Deletion policy already states that obvious speedy deletion candidates (such as spam) do not require nomination unless they are more than 24 hours old.
 * Per Project:Using Mediawiki templates it is generally best to discuss template creation before creating a new template, and I'm not sure there would have been agreement to create this new template.
 * In the past the consensus has been to try to minimize required maintenance by consolidating deletion requests - see discussions on Project:Votes for deletion, for example - and as someone who handles a significant amount of the deletion requests on this site I'd like to stick with that process.
 * -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 18:45, 10 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Comment. As the creator, I will not oppose this request as I was unaware of the recommendations at Project:Using Mediawiki templates about MediaWiki template discussion. However, I believe speedy deletion and nominated deletion are 2 completely different things. While nominated deletion requires discussion, as the policy states, obvious speedy deletion candidates should be immediately deleted. I understand administrators will delete them when they see them, but there are some time periods where there are no administrators actively following the recent changes, and many may be missed. If many spam articles are created, it's tedious for normal users to have to keep a list of them and wait 24 hours to check which ones have been dealt with, and which ones should be nominated for a discussion which is fairly unnecessary. (WT-en)  J ames A    >talk 00:27, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Delete. I find this designation useless. It's obvious when a page has spam on it, and when I see that, I delete it right away. When I see your template, I take another step of checking to see what the deleted text was. It's a time-waster, rather than a time-saver. I know you mean to be helpful, so please don't take my remarks the wrong way; I'm just being frank. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:56, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Delete I agree with (WT-en) Ikan Kekek, that while I appreciate the idea, I think it creates more work. I'm not seeing too many spam articles that hang around for 24 hours, so I think the advice is not to keep a personal list, but just ignore them and leave them for someone else.   I also agree with (WT-en) Ryan that the approach is best discussed in the deletion policy.    --(WT-en) Inas 18:38, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

--(WT-en) Inas 18:43, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Result: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:05, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Jan Gissberg
Persons, are not a subject on Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Rein N. 09:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
 * (Speedy) Delete! (WT-en) D-270599 (talk to me, please!) 09:27, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. Note that per the deletion policy pages created as vandalism generally don't require a delete nomination ("New pages that are plainly spam and that qualify for speedy deletion will be deleted as soon as they are noticed by an administrator, and therefore do not need to be listed on the votes for deletion page. If such a page remains for more than 24 hours, add it to the nominations page as a way to ensure that it isn't overlooked."). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:49, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Ema Datshi

 * Unsuccessful "speedy delete". Four admins tried but were not able to delete it. (WT-en) Jc8136 03:27, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) 6k7a4q5f9
It gets worse: User was blocked and the site protected but still spambots were able to corrupt the page. I think this turns ugly... (WT-en) Jc8136 07:17, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Ouangjgo8bq
Next not deletable account. Blocked and protected so far. (WT-en) Jc8136 07:26, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

User:(WT-en) Yunsuhytht+ Leal
Can't delete due to bug. (WT-en) Jc8136 08:31, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Result: Speedy deleted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 1 August 2012 (EDT)