View source for Wikivoyage:Votes for undeletion/Archives

{{shortcut|[[Vfu]]}} 
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- generates a "+"-Tab so we can easily add a new topic --> 

It may occur from time to time that we delete an article by mistake -- that is, that the article doesn't actually meet the standards for deleting articles listed on the [[VFD]] page. In this case, a Wikivoyager should link to the page on this page, with an explanation of why the deletion wasn't in accordance with our [[Project:deletion policy|deletion policy]]. Articles and images are still considered guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a nomination is uncontested or a consensus arises that the page was deleted unnecessarily, then an administrator should reinstate the page. Otherwise, the page will stay deleted.

See also: [[Project:votes for deletion|votes for deletion]]

Please list new pages below.

{{WikivoyageDoc|collaboration}}

==[[:Image:Nativity Monk.JPG]]==
* So.  I do not accept the deletion of this image, and I would like anybody who is still in favor of deleting it &mdash; currently only Nils? &mdash; to a) explain exactly what they find objectionable, and b) suggest how to fix it. [[User:(WT-en) Jpatokal|(WT-en) Jpatokal]] 12:46, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
** Firstly, there wasn't consensus to keep the picture, which is the standard we have for v.f.d. I count 3 people (myself, Colin, Nils) who said to delete it, and 3 (you, Hans, and Pierre) who said to keep it. (I archived the v.f.d. discussion at [[Image talk:Nativity Monk.JPG]].) The main problem is that it is a picture of a person, which is contrary to our [[Project:image use policy|image use policy]]. In addition, the photographer doesn't have a verbal or written model release, which violates the [[Project:privacy rights|privacy rights]] of the model. You've put forward the argument that the person is not recognizable, but I think that's not the case (it's a caucasian male, early 30s, about 5'8" or so, dark brown hair, full beard, average complexion). It's beside the point, in any event, since there's nothing in our policy that says it's OK to have people if they're not recognizable. The monk is very clearly the subject of the picture -- he didn't accidentally walk in the way as the photographer was shooting those two loudspeakers, a short stairway, and 1/8th of an arch. Needless to say, the image name suggests that the monk is the subject. Another point is that he's engaged in an extremely private activity -- prayer -- and was not part of any group (a concert, a protest). Finally, I don't think the photo has particular travel relevance -- travellers aren't going to be able to go to that church and find that same monk praying, anyways. It's a really great photograph, but it's just not appropriate for an Open Content travel guide. The photographer may be able to avoid a privacy rights lawsuit if his lawyer makes a good argument before a judge, but this isn't a court of law. This is a collaborative project, and the entire group has to agree that publishing this picture is worth the risk, however small. I, for one, think it's not.  To fix it, I'd suggest using an actual photo of the church in question, without people in it, or if needed a crowd scene which doesn't focus on a particular person. [On a personal note, I want you to know that the deletion of this picture does not in any way signal a lack of appreciation for your excellent work on Wikivoyage. You are one of the best and most dedicated people here, and your very generous donation of high-quality photographs has raised the visual standard of Wikivoyage several notches. I hope you understand that making exceptions in the rules based on who makes the contribution is a very slippery slope.] --[[User:(WT-en) Evan|(WT-en) Evan]] 13:37, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
** I prefer this stay deleted.  First, it has some hypothetical legal risk (as I mentioned in vfd).  Second, it's helpful to be consistent with policy.  Third, I don't see this as a "must have" image since people don't go to Bethlehem because it has a pretty chapel &mdash; so I don't feel willing to accept risks to keep it.  It's nice, but the article will be fine without it (unlike, for example, [[:Image:Okayama Castle Hilltop.JPG]] which is extremely illustrative of the location and jaw-dropping gorgeous to boot). -- [[User:(WT-en) Cjensen|(WT-en) Colin]] 14:50, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
::I think all the controversy and back and forth over the ethical/legal aspects of showing the person should just be gently pushed aside by the practical issues, just to get out of deadlock. This photo is currently not used in any article, it doesn't recognizably depict any specific travel destination, nor do I think it even shows a unique "slice of life" of the culture/destination it depicts. I don't think anyone could, just by looking at the photo, even place the continent it's from. There is certainly nothing objectionable to it. It's an excellent photo, with good composition and interesting matter, but it's just not a travel photo. Delete. -- [[User:(WT-en) Paul Richter|(WT-en) Paul Richter]] 21:26, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

:::Um, it is used by [[Bethlehem]] and (IMHO) represents a pretty darn good summary of what the town is about.  Some strange bug (probably due to reuploading the file under the same name) prevents it from being listed as a link though. [[User:(WT-en) Jpatokal|(WT-en) Jpatokal]] 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Anyway, while I still disagree with the reasoning above, at least there's some consensus ''against'' now and I'll bow to it gracefully.  But before I shut up, y'all will have to pick a new image to replace Mr. Monk from here:

: [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/ http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/]

My favorites are [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Nativity_Priest.JPG this] and [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Souq_Kids.JPG this] but somehow I doubt those will pass privacy police scrutiny either. [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/MangerSq_Mosque.JPG This] is postcard-y but gives the wrong impression (nobody goes to Bethlehem for the mosques). [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/StCatherine_Statue.JPG This] is a nice picture but doesn't really say very much...  [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Grotto_Entrance.JPG this] and [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Grotto_Nun.JPG this] are uglier but give some idea (and hey, the church is ugly too).  Or maybe just [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Poster_Resistance.JPG this] or [http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Palestine/Bethlehem/Souq_Meat.JPG that] for that warm and fuzzy "Welcome to Bethlehem!" feeling. [[User:(WT-en) Jpatokal|(WT-en) Jpatokal]] 02:18, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

:OK, I think we can easily agree on this one: Elvis Sheik!! Seriously, I think some of the Old Town or Manger Square scenes would be good if you have some that aren't as politically charged. --[[User:(WT-en) Paul Richter|(WT-en) Paul Richter]] 04:06, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

::Unfortunately the King was spotted not in Bethlehem, but in the legendary Elvis Diner on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway... a destination in itself, I might add.  But "not politically charged" is a pretty tough call for an occupied war zone in these days of ''intifada'', the last time I visited (Apr 2003) I traveled by armored car.  And the pics in the link above are all I have. [[User:(WT-en) Jpatokal|(WT-en) Jpatokal]] 04:19, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
[[de:Project:Bitte wiederherstellen]]


==[[St.Joakim Osogovski Monastery]]==

*Undelete. We reached the consensus that monastery can be an exemption for what constitutes an article. Windhorse (I believe) was working on this article. - Sapphire.
* I deleted this one - there was one vote in favor of keeping it on the [[Project:Votes for deletion]] and several against.  The article itself had no content other than a vfd notice, despite it having been on the site for a few weeks.  Also, I don't see anything on [[Project:What is an article?]] saying that this particular monastery should be kept or should not be listed as an attraction.  If we need an article for this monastery in the future it can be re-created, but until then I think it was properly deleted and should stay that way. -- [[User:(WT-en) Wrh2|(WT-en) Ryan]] 02:52, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
* Yeah, this kind of looks like a fair deletion. Monasteries can be articles sometimes, but it wasn't clear that this one was. --[[User:(WT-en) Evan|(WT-en) Evan]] 02:55, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

::I've never actually seen this article, so I don't know how great it was, but I came across a conversation on this article with someone asking us to keep it. I figured I'd throw it up here in case an error was made. It's not possible to see what it looked like prior deletion, right? [[User:(WT-en) Sapphire|(WT-en) Sapphire]] 02:58, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
:::Nevermind. I didn't read Ryan's note. If there was nothing on it then void my asking for the "undeletion." [[User:(WT-en) Sapphire|(WT-en) Sapphire]] 03:00, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

== [[Freiburg i. Br.]] ==

Was not VFD'd, yet [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22Freiburg%20i.%20Br.%22 Google reports "about 1,320,000" hits], and was (and still is) linked to from [[Baden Württemberg]]. Valid abbreviation for [[Freiburg im Breisgau]], should be a redirect to [[Freiburg]]. ~ [[User:58.8.2.182|58.8.2.182]] 15:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: '''Recreated''' as Redirect to [[Freiburg]] --[[User:(WT-en) NJR ZA|(WT-en) Nick]] 05:05, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== [[Pereira]] ==

This page was not [[VFD]]'d. It was deleted @ 01:38, 20 December 2007 and then [[Pereira (Colombia)]] was moved to [[Pereira]] @ 01:39, 20 December 2007. At the time of deletion it was a disambiguation page. I have no objection to it being undeleted as [[Pereira (disambiguation)]]. ~ [[User:203.144.143.4|203.144.143.4]] 01:30, 20 December 2007 (EST)
* So what goes on here?  Looks like it's been re-created via a move. -- [[User:(WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill|(WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill]] 11:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, that's exactly what the VFU says. First the move needs to be undone, and then the deletion. ~ [[User:61.7.183.208|61.7.183.208]] 03:57, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== [[Ferries in the Mediterranean]] ==

We need information on ferries around Mediterranean (or at least between the key destinations in [[Greece]]), and [[Ferries in the Mediterranean]] was the first attempt to gather such info that I can remember at Wikivoyage.

Earlier we have removed an extlink to a third-party source of schedules and routes available for Greece alone (see [[Talk:Greece#ferry schedule and routes]]). But if we also don't allow such info to be gathered by Wikivoyageers--and we don't have an ''official'' one-stop source for such info, it's quite strange for me.

I ''did'' travel around Greek islands, and it was really a nightmare to find any online source of information that give enough information even for my individual route--and yes, finally I turned to Lonely Planet (which helped a bit, but did not allow to complete my task).

It's really pity for me that I couldn't vote to keep it earlier, so I vote for undeletion.

VFD discussion can be found here: [[Project:Votes_for_deletion/September_2007#List_of_ferries]]. --[[User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin|(WT-en) DenisYurkin]] 17:24, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: I've gone over the original VFD discussion and still have the same main concern. We do not need a useless list of contacts. 
: If you are however willing to put in the effort to turn this into a real ''travel topic'' then I'll definitely support an '''Undelete'''. I do think this can be useful provided that it does not try to be overly detailed, i.e. specifying the departure times of each and every ferry from each and every port is not a good idea since those are subject to frequent changes that will never be updated in WT. 
: You might also want do consider a rename if this is undeleted. ''Ferries in the Mediterranean'' invites people to turn it into an ugly long list, something like ''Travel the Mediterranean by Ferry'' suggest that there should be more to the article. --[[User:(WT-en) NJR ZA|(WT-en) Nick]] 02:00, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Outcome: '''Undeleted''' --[[User:(WT-en) NJR ZA|(WT-en) Nick]] 05:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:: I'm happy to see that the page I started a year ago, which was deleted, is revived again. -- [[User:(WT-en) Eiland|(WT-en) Eiland]] 13:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

==[[Trollstigen]]==

I'm still not sure whether this should have been deleted (I nominated it), and I'm not sure exactly what to do with it. But I just noticed it's one of the nine "other destinations" on the country page for [[Norway]]. That gives me additional pause. Anyway, I'll just leave this vfu up here and see if anyone has any good ideas.  --[[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald|(WT-en) Peter]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 02:10, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, I'm going to give a firm '''Undelete'''. Trollstigen, as I understand it, is a road leading through a fjord of the same name. We have plenty of other pages for fjords, and treat them as regions. I think we could convert this one pretty easily.  --[[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald|(WT-en) Peter]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 02:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::'''Comment''': It looks like there never was a followup on this. If you can turn this into a region article easily, I support you in undeleting this article. Is there an easy way to do that? [[User:Ikan Kekek|Ikan Kekek]] ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|talk]]) 12:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

== Several Copyright Violations ==

*[[Viernheim]]
*[[Lazaro cardenas]]
*[[Albacete]]
*[[Castellon]]
*[[Capelle]]
*[[Best]]
*[[Trujillo (Spain)]]

All the above were deleted on or about 26 February 2009 by [[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald]] with the comment ''copyvio''. While I applaude efforts to rid Wikivoyage of spam, I think these deletions need discussion. The articles are probably valid as names (bar one on the basis of capitalisations) but are merely orphaned pages that are copyright violations. I thought we preferred to fix rather than delete such articles. An attention grabbing template is called [[:Template:Copyvio]] and articles could be tagged this way rather than being deleted on sight - unless there is a website take down law in effect that now requires us to take down copyright violations pre-emptively before the website needs to be taken down - which I understand is about to happen here in New Zealand.... We could at least replace the bad articles with empty templates. - [[User:(WT-en) Huttite|(WT-en) Huttite]] 09:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:[[User talk:(WT-en) Willywill9876#Copyright violations|No need to go through process on this one]]; just "speedy undelete," remove the text that was there (it's all copyrighted), and integrate it into our geographical hierarchy. I deleted them in part to save time cleaning up the copyvios (going through each subsection and deleting text takes longer), and as an attention-getter for the user. --[[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald|(WT-en) Peter]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 09:33, 25 February 2009 (EST)
::Deleting them is an easy way to get rid of the copyright-violating text and excise it from the history.  If someone wishes to recreate them with a template, I see no reason not to.  [[User:(WT-en) LtPowers|(WT-en) LtPowers]] 10:45, 25 February 2009 (EST)
::: [[Albacete]] and [[Trujillo (Spain)]] have both been recreated by the original user, complete with all the copyright violating text, all over again. What policy says we should be deleting the specific edits containing copyright violations? Because if there isn't one, we should be restoring the origial edits too. Though if there is one then we should be deleting those edits consistently - which we are not doing at present. - [[User:(WT-en) Huttite|(WT-en) Huttite]] 04:49, 28 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't understand what you mean by "restoring the [original] edits".  [[User:(WT-en) LtPowers|(WT-en) LtPowers]] 13:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)
:::::What's the status of the other proposed undeletions that are currently red-linked? [[User:Ikan Kekek|Ikan Kekek]] ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|talk]]) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think the verdict on these is that people can re-create them if they want, but that there's no sense in restoring the original copyvios.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

== [[Xcaret]], Mexico ==

Maybe Xcaret is a privately-owned park, but it is also a natural area in Mexico's southeast. It has all the facilities to be considered a park. I did this page cause I think many people looks for it. In fact, spanish version doesn't have any problem, but editors of english version of Wikivoyage want to delete it. I would want to know why if Disneyland has its own page, Xcaret can't. Because Disney is also a privately-owned park, and instead, Xcaret has very different purposes, such as nature preservation, and it is in fact an ecopark, a Wikivoyage pages cathegory. The text is mine, photos are mine, so I can't find a reason to delete it.  <small>—The [[Project:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:187.141.78.194|187.141.78.194]] ([[User talk:187.141.78.194|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/187.141.78.194|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>


: Discussion here: [[Project:Votes for deletion/October 2008#Xcaret]]  [[User:(WT-en) LtPowers|(WT-en) LtPowers]] 19:27, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
: ^ '''previous''' discussion, please don't edit that page.

:: One of the general rules for parks is that they don't get their own page if you can't sleep there.  Xcarat is a day-trip destination with the only lodging offsite.  By comparison, DW is a large complex with sleeping on-site; it occupies a strange middle ground between "park" and "small city" rarely found elsewhere.  Generally the parks template is for something more like [[Glacier National Park]].  As it is, Xcarat hardly seems to merit an entire article of its own even if you ''could'' sleep there -- it reads much more like a promo brochure at the moment.
:: Also, there is no Xcarat page on the Spanish Wikivoyage: [http://es.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Especial:Search?search=xcarat&go=Ir].  There may be one on ''Wikipedia'', but that is a different site with different goals and has no bearing on this discussion.   - [[User:(WT-en) Dguillaime|(WT-en) Dguillaime]] 13:36, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

* '''Redirect''' (as has already been done).  Looking at http://www.xcaret.com/ this place is either a resort or a theme park, and thus doesn't meet the criteria set forth [[Project:What is an article]].  We make exceptions occasionally, but given the vast amount of resort spam we end up dealing with for [[Cancun]] I think the bar needs to be a bit higher as to why one particular resort there deserves its own article. -- [[User:(WT-en) Wrh2|(WT-en) Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 13:50, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== [[Grundy]] ==

I was about to move [[Grundy, Virginia (Buchanan County)]] to [[Grundy]] and noticed it had previously been speedily deleted by [[User:(WT-en) OldPine|(WT-en) OldPine]] on 31 May 2008. However, I cannot find any deletion discussion, so since the article has been recreated I am undeleting the original article version too. -- [[User:(WT-en) Huttite|(WT-en) Huttite]] 08:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== [[Plainville]] ==

[[Plainville]] was deleted without discussion. - [[User:(WT-en) Huttite|(WT-en) Huttite]] 18:10, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:I totally agree, Huttite. Thank you! whr2 peetrfitzgerald and sertmann way off. --[[User:72.87.62.96|72.87.62.96]] 18:16, 11 January 2010 (EST)
: There is a long-standing precedent of discouraging [[pcv|page creation vandalism]] through the use of speedy deletes. -- [[User:(WT-en) Wrh2|(WT-en) Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 18:19, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::We all know this by now, Ryan. --[[User:72.87.62.96|72.87.62.96]] 18:21, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:::&rarr; [[User talk:Peterfitzgerald/Archives_2009#pcv.3F]]  --[[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald|(WT-en) Peter]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 18:22, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:::: There may be precedent that is discussed on the talk page, but the speedy deletion procedure for [[pcv|page creation vandalism]] that is discussed on the talk page has not been written into the deletion policy. I was following the policy, which asks for at least a simple check that the page could potentially be a destination. I must admit I too was initially suspected that '''Plainville''' was merely vandalism, but when I checked Wikipedia, and did a google search, I was most surprised to discover it was not just one real place but several places, in two different countries, on two different continents! The name alone probably makes it a tourist destination. I concluded that the article was a likely destination and created a disambiguation page. To then discover the original page had been deleted from underneath me was most annoying, so I saved my work, restored the original contribution, to be fair to the original contributor, and challenged the deletion here. - [[User:(WT-en) Huttite|(WT-en) Huttite]] 04:53, 12 January 2010 (EST)
:::::I agree.  I think "pages created with no intention of adding actual content to them" may be a valid speedy criterion, but it needs to be written into policy.  Having the procedure questioned by every new user who notices it, thus forcing the wise veteran sages who implemented the pseudo-policy have to continually link to [[pcv]], is inefficient and somewhat baffling.  [[User:(WT-en) LtPowers|(WT-en) LtPowers]] 09:04, 12 January 2010 (EST)
::::::Nonsense. Reverting trolling is about as straightforward a policy and practice as we have. All that should be needed to coordinate administrative efforts in dealing with trolling is to link to the history of this trolling, the discussions that established how we deal with it. The point of this trolling is to waste our time, and it is as successful as we collectively are stupid.  --[[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald|(WT-en) Peter]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 11:09, 12 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::It's straightforward for those who recognize the trolling.  But it's not obvious to the novice and a simple note in the policy document would be a concise way to reflect current consensus.  [[User:(WT-en) LtPowers|(WT-en) LtPowers]] 13:35, 12 January 2010 (EST)
::::::::Right, but we don't actually want to discourage people from creating new outline articles&mdash;it's just this particular user is creating such outlines in bad faith, often with false or misleading content, or for destinations he thinks [[na|shouldn't have articles]]. Hard cases make bad law, as they say.  --[[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald|(WT-en) Peter]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 13:45, 12 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::::Well I don't know how you tell this one user from any other.  [[User:(WT-en) LtPowers|(WT-en) LtPowers]] 15:49, 12 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::::: Beyond their own admission [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=1347837&oldid=1347835]?  Much like how we recognize spambots, they have a distinct pattern and some decidedly unusual grammatical habits that add up to a fairly convincing identification, and they've been active under several consecutive new user accounts in just the past five days, at a minimum including [[Special:Contributions/(WT-en) KillerGhoulSlaya2457]], [[Special:Contributions/(WT-en) FourGreenLights]], [[Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Ola346]], [[Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Cortage]], [[Special:Contributions/(WT-en) DonaldFrederickLandry II]], and another one or two that were abandoned so quickly they're not conclusive (see also the deletion log for more of their debris).   - [[User:(WT-en) Dguillaime|(WT-en) D. Guillaime]] 17:40, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Still, no harm adding to the policy that ''articles with no travel content identified as page creation vandalism can be speedy deleted.  This sets no precedent, and they can be recreated with legitimate travel content at any time subsequently.''  In the deletion comment, just note that it was speedy deleted as pcv, and then everyone is on the same page. --[[User:(WT-en) Inas|(WT-en) inas]] 18:03, 12 January 2010 (EST)

:The vast majority of empty page creations are by new users trying to find out if the destination they are looking for can be accessed by that link, or are simply trying out their first steps on contributing to a wiki. Better to just link [[pcv]] in the edit summary.

:And regarding the undeletion here, I think it's perfectly fine in this type of case for someone to just go right ahead and re-create an article if they think it worthwhile.  --[[User:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald|(WT-en) Peter]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 19:08, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== [[UNESCO]] (and [[Unesco]]) ==

The page was deleted with the reasoning "''could also refer to UNESCO creative cities''". While that is true, I believe it's one of those circumstances where nearly every time it is used, the intended article is [[UNESCO World Heritage List]]. The [[UNESCO Creative Cities]] list is linked to in the World Heritage article's intro, and also in the left sidebar. Before reading that article, I was not even aware UNESCO Creative Cities existed, and I live in one! So I propose we '''undelete''' the article, and redirect to the Heritage List. At the ''very least'', but unpreferably, it should be recreated as a disambiguation between the two, as the deletion leaves a [[Special:WhatLinksHere/UNESCO|long list of dead links]]. [[User:JamesA|<font color="#4682b4">James'''A'''</font>]]  <sup>[[User talk:JamesA|<font color="#191970">'''>talk'''</font>]]</sup> 15:05, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

*'''Strong support.''' [[User:Jjtk|Jjtk]] ([[User talk:Jjtk|talk]]) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

*You're right I have been a bit quick on deleting. The reason I deleted these two pages, is because UNESCO is an agency of the United Nations. I thought a redirect could perhaps confuse site visitors, as "UNESCO" itself doesn't give much of a clue on what someone could be looking for. Pages like [[UNESCO World Heritage Site]] should obviously be redirected to the [[UNESCO World Heritage List]], but just "UNESCO" could mean many things for someone searching, of which [[UNESCO Creative Cities]] is an obvious example. UNESCO does a lot more than just keeping World Heritage Sites. --[[User:Globe-trotter|Globe-trotter]] ([[User talk:Globe-trotter|talk]]) 16:01, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

* '''Undelete'''.  I agree with James's reasoning: though UNESCO does do many things, from a travel perspective, I'd expect nearly everyone is looking for the WHL.  I was also unaware of the Creative Cities until just now, and I see it's a fairly new program; if it starts becoming more noticed in future years, we can absolutely change the redirect to a disambiguation page, but for now I don't think it's beneficial.  Tons of dead links with no page at all are ''certainly'' not beneficial.  The CC list is also prominently listed in the WHL's intro paragraph, so it should get enough visibility.  -- [[User:Dguillaume|D. Guillaume]] ([[User talk:Dguillaume|talk]]) 02:22, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

'''Result:''' Undeleted --[[User:Globe-trotter|Globe-trotter]] ([[User talk:Globe-trotter|talk]]) 17:26, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

== [[Template:Busy]] ==
This template was [[Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2013#Template:Busy|deleted]] given reason that "Only one user is using the template currently,". This template is almost on every wiki of WMF projects and it is only used by users when necessary (when they're busy in real life). The consensus was to keep the template because majority of the votes was to keep. Please support to undelete it. Thank you. --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 06:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - There was no consensus to delete this. In fact, the majority of the votes were to keep this template. <font color="#339989">–[[User:Sumone10154|'''<font color="#339989">sumone10154</font>''']]<sup>([[User talk:Sumone10154|<font color="#339989">talk</font>]])</sup></font> 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - ''per'' [[User:Sumone10154]]. I would also like a clarification of our deletion policy for templates. I tried to [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy&curid=68778&diff=2115001&oldid=2114971 begin a clarification of policy here, but no sooner had I started, my edit was reverted] -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 08:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Wait'''. Our practices regarding templates are evolving, with some users offering constructive criticism and suggestions. We may decide that people can create any userspace templates they want, but let's work through those discussions first.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 08:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
*As explained on [[Template talk:Busy]], deletion discussions are emphatically ''not'' a majority vote.  All pages up for deletion are guilty until proven innocent, and no compelling case for keeping the template was presented in the discussion.  There is no purpose to this template that cannot be served just as well by a simple notice at the top of someone's talk page, and no one even attempted to present one in the deletion discussion.  Two persons said nothing more than "Keep"; surely you don't expect me to do anything but completely discount such a useless contribution to the discussion?  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

**[[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]]: you have been very informative in explaining how you arrived at the decision to delete and I hope I have learned a lot from those explanations. 
**I still don't think that the '''policy existing at the time of the deletion proposal''' dealt at all adequately with templates in User namespace so I think that the template should be un-deleted forthwith (and then tagged with "experimental" if thought necessary) &mdash; and only if you are minded NOT to undelete, should we wait and hold this discussion open ''per'' Peter's suggestion. 
**On a point of information, I am baffled why you wrote [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Busy&oldid=2116463 "''Frank mentioned having a way to keep track of users who are busy, but failed to explain why that would be useful.''"] when he clearly gave this explanation: [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Busy&oldid=2116463 "''...more importantly, of us being able to easily compile a list of editors that may not see site notices for a while so that they could be e-mailed instead...''"] at the time, with the (unwritten) implication (that at least one editor understood, since they responded that there was no policy to use categories in User namespace) that a category could be added to the template.
**I still think that the ''majority'' of our community do not understand that simple "keeps" or "deletes" are useless and this needs to be spelt out much more clearly in policy pages or '''should have been made clear at the time you made the decision, ''by you'' so that they could then have added a rationale to their <s>vote</s> stated view'''. -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 01:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

**Like Alice, I didn't realize that I always had to give an argument for a suggestion to delete or keep an article. And I'd like to know, when decisions are made in the face of a majority vote, who makes the decisions? I have no axe to grind on this particular deletion, but it would seem to me, if the vote were either a majority to keep or about 50/50, we should err on the side of keeping an article. [[User:Ikan Kekek|Ikan Kekek]] ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|talk]]) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

***It's not surprising that, like me, you did not know about the need to express a rationale. This was only recently added to the vfd heading with [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=2012829 this revision of 02:39, 26 November 2012] -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 08:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
::::: Why else have a [[deletion policy]] at all?  It seems to me, that it seems reasonable to be familiar with the deletion policy before you come to vfd.  Otherwise, our deletion policy would be ''whatever people happen to think at the time'' The vfd page isn't the deletion policy.  --[[User:Inas|Inas]] ([[User talk:Inas|talk]]) 08:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Spot on again, Inas. 
::::::That's why I posed this question below (which, at the time of writing this) has not yet been answered: 
::::::''"Please would someone point me towards the revision of the policy page (extant at the time this template was nominated for deletion)'' 06:57, 15 October 2012 (CEST) ''that clearly enunciated that templates were not allowed in User namespace (or, indeed, the deletion policy dealing with templates - and, let's be clear, templates are decidedly '''neither''' articles '''nor''' images)?"''
::::::This policy about template deletion was only parachuted in to [[Wikivoyage:Deletion policy]] as recently as [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Deletion_policy&diff=next&oldid=2024872 this revision of 08:56, 6 December 2012] -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Undelete:''' Harmless '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Purplebackpack89#top|<font color="#3A003A">Pur</font><font color="#800080">ple</font>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<font color="#991C99">back</font><font color="#CC33CC">pack</font><font color="gold">89</font>]]</font>'''  19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
*:In the discussion, I discounted "harmless" as a reason to keep the template; it is even less suitable as a reason to undelete.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 20:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Undelete:''' as the intent of the policy was to avoid a template making changes to the format of the destination guides in mainspace. There is no reason why a userspace page would follow a standardised see-do-buy-eat-drink-sleep format or need to look like every other page on the wiki. [[User:K7L|K7L]] ([[User talk:K7L|talk]]) 02:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' as clearly against consensus. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 02:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' Consensus and policy needs to be established elsewhere, and followed here.  The consensus up until now has clearly been against userspace templates.  I don't see this as a big deal, and I'd be open to a discussion to permit them, and I'd love to be convinced.  If and when that new policy is clear, then I'll follow that and vote to undelete.  --[[User:Inas|Inas]] ([[User talk:Inas|talk]]) 03:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
**That seems logical and straight forward. 
**Please would someone point me towards the revision of the policy page (extant at the time this template was nominated for deletion) that clearly enunciated that templates were not allowed in User namespace (or, indeed, the deletion policy dealing with templates - and, let's be clear, templates are decidedly '''neither''' articles '''nor''' images)? PS: One can't expect new (or old) editors here to ferret out POLICY from vague and interminable discussions without a stated conclusion on user talk or article discussion pages. If it's not written on a policy page ''somewhere'', then it's not policy. Simple really. 
**It's not surprising if policy/consensus is so opaque that [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_info&action=history even the most unlikely unwittingly fall foul of it] if there really is a policy somewhere not to allow templates in user namespace. Not to worry, though, Philippe can just lose the wicked template, convert his Wikivoyage user page into raw HTML and wikimarkup and that will be hunky dory, eh? -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 05:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
***I agree fully with Inas. Given that we're currently trying to hash out a new consensus on this, trying to runaround that process here seems inappropriate.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 08:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
****Do you also think that we should also not make things clearer in the header of '''the most proximate page'''? I would have thought it was in everyone's interest not to continue to see peoples views and time wasted through [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=2119081 deliberate obfuscation]. -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
***** You deleted an important part of the initial message. I also take into account votes that are not explained in detail (especially if a long discussion is above). Not everyone needs to tell the same story again to be counted. If i heard the same story four times, the 5th will not make it better/worse. Don't make discussions here harder. [[User:Jc8136|jan]] ([[User talk:Jc8136|talk]]) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
******Really? When?
******Are you able to produce the diff. that shows that I "deleted an important part of the initial message". What '''exactly and precisely''' was the important part that you contend I deleted, please? -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 10:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
*******The diff you stated above yourself, when i undid your change [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=2119081]. The words you deleted '''''Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent.''' After fourteen 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 [[Project:Votes for deletion#Nominating|Nominating]] and [[Project:Votes for deletion#Commenting|Commenting]] sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.'' [[User:Jc8136|jan]] ([[User talk:Jc8136|talk]]) 10:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
********I think you need new spectacles, Jan. Look again carefully and you will see that far from deleting the emboldened phrase "'''Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent.'''" I actually made it stand out more by giving it its own separate line! Please revert your unnecessary and uncalled for revert of my helpful text and give me a little apology for reverting too hastily without actually studying the diff. This is just one reason that I always recommend ''editing'' rather than reverting. -- [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><font color="#0000DD">A</font><font color="#0066FF">l</font><font color="#0099FF">i</font><font color="#00CCFF">c</font><font color="#00EEFF">e</font></b>]][[Special:Emailuser/Alice|<font color="#FF3333"><sup>✉</sup></font>]] 10:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Alice, i do have a real life, so i can't comment instantly on everything. You falsely suggest that i do slowly response but sometimes other things have priority (e.g. my lunch break). Writing things in '''big''' and seperate them doesn't make them better. If you copy things to a talk page, then place them at the bottom (you should know that by now). [[User:Jc8136|jan]] ([[User talk:Jc8136|talk]]) 12:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' I still can't see any compelling reason why people need this template. We have been slushed with templates we don't need. [[User:Jc8136|jan]] ([[User talk:Jc8136|talk]]) 07:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

== Rock ==

'''Undelete'''. This page was deleted by [[User:Ikan Kekek]] @ 11:37 21 January 2013 on the basis of "no useful content" but should be reinstated. I had created the page only minutes before and had only filled in the Understand section. Having gone away to obtain further information, I returned a few minutes later to add some listings only to find that the page had been deleted without any discussion. Speedy deletion within minutes of an article's creation, where there is no breach of policy, serves no useful purpose other than to annoy people. For my part, I'm not sure that I can be bothered to make any further contributions to Wikivoyage if attempts to create useful articles are deleted within the first few minutes of their life. [[User:Tallguyuk|Tallguyuk]] ([[User talk:Tallguyuk|talk]]) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

: '''Undelete'''. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock,_Cornwall Rock, Cornwall] is a real place. One might argue that it is too small to get its own article & should be just a redirect, but there is no reason at all for deletion. [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] ([[User talk:Pashley|talk]]) 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)