Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy in the European Union


 * 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   speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Visa policy in the European Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Strong Keep: This article is about rather important government policy. Government policy is an encyclopedic topic.Ciprian.Enache (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic.  Basket of Puppies  13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. 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) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I see there is A LOT of these AfDs and won't vote on all. I agree with you that all should be on the same page for voting. If these articles offered a historical perspective of visa requirements or more insight, they would be encyclopedic IMO. Right now, they just appear to be a one-stop shop for one to find out what countries they can get into which fails WP:NOTTRAVEL.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * About the historical perspective - with some of my edits on the EU visa page I tried to show the changes over time/historical perspective, but after some big overhaul of the layout the content was not put in the new version (haven't got time yet to put it back). And this is my point - at first these pages may be "weak", but hopefully over time editors will contribute and enrich them (for example diving deeper in history - that is possible for the EU at least up to the beginning of Schengen as its decisions are publicly accessible from the EU site). Alinor (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If it's government policy about who can get into which country with which piece of paper, I think that counts as encyclopaedic. Per the text of WP:NOTTRAVEL, if the article advertised a hotel or suggested the best place in Venice to get a coffee, I would agree that it failed WP:NOTTRAVEL, but I doubt that is the case here; it's a significant point of verifiable information. We wouldn't delete Mannekin Pis even though that is overwhelmingly a tourist destination! Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that these AfDs should be dealt with individually, rather than centrally; and since I don't want any more hints of failing to AGF, I've been trying to humour that. bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If I am not mistaking something this Template:AfD_footer_(multiple) should be used for multiple-page-AfD. I will post this to Morocco, Kyrgyzstan, EU and Basket of Puppies discussions. Alinor (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This meta-discussion, relating not to the article at hand but to the deletion discussion processes, is currently occurring in broken form across three AFD discussions. Please take this to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where I suggest that we learn from history. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment centralised discussion would be a plus. There is a risk that if we delete all the "visa requirements for" articles the information will work its way back to the passport articles. In any event this article is, strictly speaking a "visa policy of" article which details the visa policies of EU member states. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting info, historical content can be an improvement (already present at "visa reciprocity section") but this page needs to mature; wikipedia is large enough for this type of content... This article clearly is much more than a list and well referenced... L.tak (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also am in favour of a centralized discussion... L.tak (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedily keep bad faith nomination, passes WP:N for miles, "this topic is not encyclopedic" I really doubt about this comment. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 00:08, 27 August 2010 (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.