Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Russian citizens

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. provisional keep pending m,ass nomination/discussion as discussed at ani

Visa requirements for Russian citizens

Visa requirements for Russian citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Not encyclopedic at all.

• Speedy keep. First of all, this request for deletion goes against the consensus which was established in Talk:Passport/Archive 3. Second, a list of visa requirements for citizens of a given nation is not an indiscriminate collection of information; other list-type articles (see Category:Geography-related lists for hundreds of examples) are considered encyclopedic by the community. Third, visa requirements are notable and frequently make the news in Russia ([1], [2], [3], and [4] are some typical examples). — Tetromino (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the archive, but could see nothing relating to consensus for these articles. However, there is a clearly forming consensus
    WP:NOT reasons. As well, the appropriate place to discuss deletion of articles is on an AfD, not on the article talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That AfD isn't even closed yet, how do you see a consensus? --Sulmues ^(talk) 03:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said there exist a consensus. I said it is forming. Basket of Puppies 04:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain precisely which parts of
      WP:NOT this article violates. And I am talking about the detailed clauses in the actual text of the guideline, not the pithy all-caps redirects. — Tetromino (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Number 6, generally. Basket of Puppies 04:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which part? Do you feel the article is a sales catalog or a yellow pages-style directory? Wikipedia generally allows standalone list-type articles, provided they are not too broad, too specific, or too trivial. — Tetromino (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The suggestion that this is a speedy keep is ridiculous. "
            speedy keep criteria.

            That said, I might be inclined to agree with your position, but it gives me significant pause when you overstate the case like this. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

            ]
            • I apologize, I did not know that the English Wikipedia has a formal definition of "speedy keep". I'm crossing out the word "speedy" per your suggestion. As for the "tangentially related article": if you read the discussion archive, you will see that Talk:Passport emerged as the central place for discussing the suitability of visa requirements information for Wikipedia. This is because (1) there are over a hundred articles listing visa requirements, and it's obviously silly to discuss each one individually when the arguments for and against keeping visa information in Wikipedia were (and still are) to a large degree independent of the nation involved; and (2) the visa requirements information was originally included in articles about various countries' passports (e.g. see the old version of the Russian passport article), making Talk:Passport a natural central forum for the editors of passport and visa articles. — Tetromino (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, there actually WAS such a consensus which was established in Talk:Passport page. I do remember that, too. "Keep or delete", "encyclopedic or non-encyclopedic", has been discussed countless times here. Thanks. Best Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got plenty of consensus on
    WP:N. Like I said above I might think this merits a Keep, but you've got to make an argument; references to esoteric talk pages aren't enough. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I should have noticed this is at ANI now. Shadowjams (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: as per keeps above. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for reasons described below. scope_creep (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are a lot of sources and they're varied. I think this kind of material borders on directory style but I'm going to err on the side of keep. Shadowjams (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.