Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Appur/Schengen Visa

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Appur/Schengen Visa


Duplicates Schengen Visa with no added value Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This does not "duplicate" Schengen Visa, since Schengen Visa is a redirect page to Schengen Area. This page is about the actual visa document that allows travel in the Schengen Area. It's a good-faith, reasonably well-done draft on a plausible topic. These is no reason to delete. A2soup (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not per nom (it is not a duplicate), but because it is stale.  Undated statements such as "The following 15 countries are currently active Schengen Visa members" are time specific and become stale, as no longer valid, in wrong, misleading, worse than useless.  Legacypac, is it funny that when you do find a "stale" page, you don't call it out for being stale?  I think so.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is a NOINDEXed draft, with a clear draft template at the top and a title not suggesting article status. Why does it matter whether it has out-of-date information or not? It's not part of the encyclopedia - it's a workspace. Should we start checking the accuracy of information in drafts? A2soup (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True. In userspace, no reasonable person will take it seriously, even if they do happen to find it. However, as it has been identified as containing misinformation, I am very happy to see it deleted.  I think searching userspace for inaccuracies is a low value job, but we are not here to decide how others should volunteer.  Sometimes Legacypac has nominated for deletion userpages of possible value, and I get very upset by that, but this page is a negative.  If I can encourage Legacypac to encourage more net negative pages, less net positive pages, then that is good.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By duplicate I mean it duplicates an existing topic that is well covered. Yes we should delete error in Drafts. Drafts are supposed to be pages on the way to mainspace, and this has no path to mainspace or value to the project. Legacypac (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Drafts don't have to have a path to mainspace as standalone articles. Pages of no value don't need to be deleted. This page should be deleted because it contains misinformation, in addition to the several other points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Never said it had to be a standalone article. There is nothing in the stale info here to merge. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.