Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Zimbabwean 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 no consensus. An RFC may be indeed a good starting point to solve the problem, especially since now we have Wikivoyage where this information is appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Zimbabwean citizens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This article does not have any encyclopedic value. This is more of a "how to"/tourism guide this is not what wikipedia is about. JetBlast (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (WP:NOTTRAVEL). Ansh666 18:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Query Is the argument the same for the other 158 pages at Category:Visa requirements by nationality ? 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been some mass deletion discussion for these articles in August 2010 but all I can find is individual links such as Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Russian citizens. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what I could find: "compromise solution to move the visa-free sections to a separate article while keeping the link for this new supplemental article through a proper template (Template:See also & Template:Main) with an image and one sentence as it can bee seen all over Wikipedia." This, however, was for "visa-free sections in passport articles". Ansh666 19:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This line from the Russian example seems to indicate some kind of ANI discussion: "The result was keep. provisional keep pending m,ass nomination/discussion as discussed at ani Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)" 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, there was mention from User:Shadowjams of a AN/I discussion, but I couldn't find it. Ansh666 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive635 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw I was mentioned here... I don't remember these discussions specifically (the linked is from 2010) and I don't actually comment in the linked discussion, but it's quite likely I was against these sorts of mass article creations at some point in the past. It just doesn't seem to be exactly that linked discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Russian_citizens where you participated, although you probably don't remember it. Sorry to bother you, if you were bothered. Ansh666 03:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment maybe we should start the RfC proposed in the AN/I thread above. Ansh666 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC) unrelated side note, I see Xenophrenic and Tea Party! looks familiar.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. --Stormbay (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the russian AFD, and this discussion. If this were Visa_requirements_for_United_States_citizens then there would already be 10 Strong keep !votes by now. Wikipedia should not be discriminating the about the existence of articles based upon which nationality/country they are.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Northern_Cypriot_citizens leads to a centralised discussion hereMartin 4 5 1  (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have voted the same on the US article, Russia, UK, whatever. I simply don't think this is encyclopedic. Ansh666 20:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for now based on the previous discussions. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete None of these art remotely notable. Wikipedia is not a how to guide, and should not have articles that are how-to articles.  Delete them all, burn with fire (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. With no references at all, it's hard to asses the notability of the article. Why does it exist? And the "(page still being constructed)" is just a joke. As to some comments above, please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep until greater consensus can be reached on whether such articles ought to exist. I am in favor of keeping such articles, but they would still need to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (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.