Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Somali 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 procedural close as no consensus. Reading the debate prima facie there may be a narrow consensus to delete. However, in light of the wholesale changes to the article since all the !votes came in, and acknowledging that some of the "delete" !votes noted that if the article was improved their opinions would likely change, I'm closing this as no consensus to delete. (I would have relisted, but it's already been open for 14 days.) Anyone can renominate at any stage if they so desire. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Somali citizens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a travel guide; only travelers would be interested in the (number of) countries Somalia's passports and visas are accepted in. This does not merit a standalone article. Esquivalience t 01:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What's in the article now is pretty incomprehensible anyway. Keep per Twofortnights' total revamp. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't even make a list of countries, which I was expecting. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 09:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per now & above, Brilliant for those living or travelling to Somali, Useless for those who aren't. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't see "not travel guide" as being engaged by a definition and a ranking (92nd in the world) from the Visa Restrictions Index. James500 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is still not worthy of a standalone article; merging into another article may provide more context. The problem is, if this is retained, then trash that belongs on Wikivoyage would end up here. Esquivalience t 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A stub in line with the many similar articles. Not a travel guide, but a stub-level foreign policy article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article remains like this then it should be deleted, but if it's brought up to the standard of other similar articles then it should be kept.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not seeing any valid argument for deletion here. Apart from the original rationale which I've opined on above, "people might add inappropriate content" is a non argument because they might not, and even if they did, we could remove it. "Needs improvement" won't work either because of IMPERFECT, PRESERVE and ATD. No problem that can't be fixed by editing seems to be alleged. James500 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - no references are provided, let alone any reliable sources to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Visa Restrictions Index is being cited as a reference. So the article isn't unreferenced. Nor can I see the basis for calling it unreliable. Articles don't have to show notability. Notability is depends on the existences of sources, not their citation in the article. Have you done a BEFORE search for sources? James500 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE searches are requested of nominators, not responders. There is no reference for "Visa Restrictions Index 2014" just a mention in the article.  The index itself is just "a global ranking of countries according to the travel freedom that their citizens enjoy".  It does not tend to prove the assertions in the article nor does it support the notability of the article.--Rpclod (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But the nominator has not argued that topic is not notable due to lack of coverage. In any event, the effect of NRVE is clearly that any argument for deletion based on lack of references in the article, and a refusal to personally look for sources, is invalid. The Index is clearly being cited in support of the ranking (92nd in the world) asserted in the article. It doesn't have to be in a footnote to be a reference. James500 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have significantly expanded the article as you can see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Somali_citizens&diff=672187254&oldid=670877181 I hope this can settle the issue and that article is now eligible to be kept on Wikipedia.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2015 (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.