Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fijian passport


 * 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. Clear consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Fijian passport

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was recently nominated for deletion on pl wiki and it made me think - what makes most passports notable? They exist, there is government legislation about them, and...? That's not enough. Some passports presumably have been written about due to their significance, history, etc. But I don't think that all passports of all countries are inherently notable. Overall, this topic seems to fail WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep (as article creator). As far as I can tell, the rationale in the AfD on plwiki is along the lines of "oh, so we have to create 200 passport articles now?"—well, those 200 or so articles have already been created on enwiki, in a surprisingly comprehensive set of articles! If some passports are notable by virtue of a presumed "significance", that risks exacerbating a systemic bias against smaller countries like Fiji where passports are as an important part of their national administrative infrastructure as currency and elections. Regarding the GNG, I must thank you for drawing my attention to this article after some time, which made me realise that Fiji introduced biometric passports just a few weeks ago, which was both a notable milestone in the history of that particular travel document, and allowed the addition of several independent, non-government sources. --Canley (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The new sources (newspapers) are a step in the right direction, through I am unsure if they can be considered in-depth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that all passports probably do pass the GNG, since they're almost certainly the subject of specific legislation (probably several pieces). Current sourcing on this article seems to indicated that it passes the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Specific legislation about passports is pretty much the definition of WP:PRIMARY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: AfD on Polish Wikipedia was closed as keep. --Canley (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I feel that all passports probably can be deemed noteworthy, but I'm happy enough with the sourcing for this one to remain here and now. There are some more that discuss various aspects - potentially a case could be made on UNDUE about the content breakdown within the article, but I feel it's existence is clear enough. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.