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The result was withdrawn by nominator. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 05:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...sometimes, when you know you are right and others are wrong, it's time to let them be wrong and just leave it that way." Seb az86556 to User:Wiki Greek Basketball on January 2, 2010.
After the removal of the visa-free section this has become a one-liner truism that does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia per WP:NOT (dictionary)
Speedy keep. This is a WP:POINTy nomination of a user involved at the Talk:Passport dispute. Those articles have always been one-line stubs, with or without the visa-free sections. Now that they're gone, maybe some effort will actually go into improving documentation of the passport itself, rather than documenting unrelated visa policy of foreign nations. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count seven posts to that page, along with this, which resulted in this and this. You did not revert, but you are most certainly involved in the dispute. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all of them now easily meet CSD-A3: "...a rephrasing of the title,...", e.g. "an X passport is a passport for people of X". I could just as well have put them up for speedy deletion. That -- would have been somewhat pointy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If you are going to nominate a batch of articles to be deleted, create a separate AfD for each, and don't lump them all together; each one needs to be considered singly and individually on its own merits, and discussed individually. WP:BUNDLE is for related articles on the same topic, not simply for parallel articles on different topics. It is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way WP:BUNDLE: "A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles." - The only difference between these is the different name of the country... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they weren't identical content until all of the carefully collected encyclopedic content was inadvisably deleted from them; each had a unique map and a unique capsule summary of the contents of dozens or hundreds of reference pages, just like a good encyclopedic page should have. Admittedly some of those pages were structured to be difficult to keep up to date, but I haven't seen compelling discussion to mutilate them on those grounds.Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree here. To make this clear: I don't care whether they exist or not, but if they do exist, they need to have content. "Honduran Passports are issued to Honduran citizens to travel outside of Honduras" is not an article -- seriously, it simply isn't. It's a circular definition. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 09:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. This is not like the discussion at Talk:Passportat all. I am sorry of having accused you of forum shopping, I was clearly mistaken. </sarcasm> A one sentence article is still a one sentence article no matter how much table formatting follows it. The visa policy of Chad as applied to Yemeni citizens has nothing to do with the physical document issued by Yemen as the Yemeni passport. Do not discuss this here, return to Talk:Passport. This is forum shopping and canvassing. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a possible alternative, I'd suggest a new Visa free travel from Mongolia page, which would copy in the offending but useful information on travel requirements, and separate it out from the Mongolian passport page which would provide details for passport holders. This would actually be quite useful since there was a piece of information that I wanted to source (where Mongolians can get passports in Australia) that did not have a place in the current page as it is constructed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I think that the nominator is right that these articles don't do anything other than to state the obvious ("The ______ Passport is an international travel document that is issued to __________ citizens"). If that's all you have to say, don't bother. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with Mandsford. We wouldn't have an article on each US state's drivers license. (I hope we don't anyway.) WP's purpose is not to be guidebook to international travel laws. People need to go elsewhere for that, like the countries' own websites where they can get official and up to date information. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I pinged the nom earlier to ask them to withdraw; having two delete votes complicates that, I think. But the issue here is that 33 related articles, all stubbed in the last 24 hours at 1/10th (on average) of their original size, are up for deletion in one go - despite the fact that, as has been noted above, the issue of their status (and that of the forked articles made from the excised material) is still very much under discussion at Talk:Passport. If editors were to expand them to comply with policy (not to say that they do or don't already comply), it would be a daunting task - moreso to accomplish it in one week. I recommend that we wait for consensus at Talk:Passport before moving foward with any mass deletion, and that further AFD nominations be subject to a limit of a few at a time, to avoid overwhelming editors. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - It's quite hard to assume good faith with those pointy nominations, but I'm trying... --Latebird (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this violates WP:POINT. What exactly do you presume is the point I'm trying to make? Convince me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically:
If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...
do argue on the article's talk page for the material's inclusion
do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".
This latter clearly could be rewritten as do not AfD the remaining article as "unimportant".
You have clearly objected to the removal of the visa-free graphics and seem to be resorting to disruptive tactics to make your point and force a resolution no one will be happy with. You also seem to to have a certain amout of COI: "Another thing I work in the Travel and Tourism Industry and I need to know this kind of information", from this pointed to above. Sorry, but I see no reason for your rudeness to User:HappenstanceUser:RashersTierney either. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies: I misattributed those comments to you because I am still trying to get to grips with the whole (exceptionally complex) issue as requested by User:RashersTierney. I will look more closely at your involment in the discussion linked above before striking the rest. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you out: From Talk:Passport: "Maybe I'm re-hashing things, but just to be clear. If in the end there will be such a guideline, that's fine. I'm just doubtful that will happen, and I'm against creating fait accompli's sp? before the guideline exists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)" I clearly state that I don't have a bone in this fight, and that I do not insist on either way. (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 03:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, I saw that, but I also saw " I would not want to set the precedent of having to go around deleting all sorts of possibly outdated pieces of information just because someone could interpret it as legal, medical, or otherwise binding guidance" which seems to suggest that you object to the rationale of deleting the material in the first place (on apparently accurate grounds, I confess, ie "Wikipedia isn't legal advice, period"). However, I see your point in some ways: this has resulted in massive edit wars... I am not sure how AfFing articles that are patently viable helps though? These articles could be expanded to explain the history and usage/abusage etc of these passports. Indeed many no longer fit your stated reasons for AfD, including the top nominated article, precicely because they have been edited to become encyclopedic. I have stricken the rest for now, as I suspect you are not actually fussed either way on the ex/inclusion of the disputed graphics but rather are pointing out flaws in the arguements that have been made for their exclusion. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have found it... I might point you to WP:BEFORE (again), however... The articles are clearly viable and you failed to remember that stubs are awaiting expansion and that recent removals from an article might suggest either vandalism or poor editing. Don't forget that stubbing is a perfectly valid process to restart articles that have been the subject of improper edits or whose previous edits are controversial. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... you withdrew. Good decision! --Jubilee♫clipman 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Without any content, the articles serve no function. If a user is able to provide encyclopedic information about e.g. the Rwandan passport (or just an image) that would be welcome. There is plenty that could be included, information such as number of pages, how it is obtained, biometrics, etc, but in the present state, delete. In the same way, we have Vehicle registration plates of Poland which is full of information but there is no Vehicle registration plates of Rwanda. And of course one afd covers the lot because inevitably the result must be the same for all candidates. Sussexonian (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found no difficulty in finding a substantial source which discusses the topic of Mongolian passports at length and have added a brief citation to the article. There is no case to answer as the article is not in the slightest a dictionary entry - the nomination seems to confuse a stub and a dictionary entry - a common mistake, as explained at WP:DICDEF. All the other article should be kept too as this misunderstanding seems to be the common factor. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the distraction of unrelated graphics have been moved to more appropriate homes, these stubs are much more likely to attract constructive edits. They were very intimidating before as they bore no relation to what they should have been contained. Whats the pressing hurry? Already some of these articles are being developed for the first time. RashersTierney (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. Matt's talk 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And restore to what it was. Some keep mass deleting 90% of the article. [1]DreamFocus 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently all the passport articles have had their content moved to other articles, such as Visa_free_travel_from_Mongolia. Why not just rename the articles instead of moving 90% of them somewhere else? And I don't see why mentioning that all Mongolian citizens must have a passport at a certain age, and whatnot, shouldn't be done on the same page as the Visa information. I say, merge that information all back together. DreamFocus 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been exhaustively debated at Talk:Passport. Please don't fork that discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is Visa_free_travel_from_Mongolia which seems to be an improper fork as it has been created by cut-paste from this article without proper attribution of the original author in accordance with our copyright licence. No deletion should take place until this mess is resolved properly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off all deletions for now and speedy close AfD - These articles are the subject of extensive debate found here and on their own talk pages. The nomination appears to be an attempt to force resolution by unreasonable and disruptive means. All the articles could quite easily be edited to become viable, I suspect, by knowledgeable editors (indeed many have been, including the top one), so this is also a case of a WP:BEFORE violation. Perhaps the proposing editor also ought to be knuckle-rapped by an admin for wasting time and disrupting legitimate editing? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum - he has been rapped, actually, but that admin is involved in this debate. What I meant was that a non-involved admin needs to be brought to deal with the editor. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
