Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of Kyrgyzstan

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 keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Visa policy of Kyrgyzstan

Visa policy of Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:08, 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) 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • So you oppose the AfD process? What is the rationale for your keep opinion? Basket of Puppies 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I oppose abusing the process with so many analogous requests. If needed the issue should be discussed in a single place.

      The rationales for keep are already stated by other users on some of the many places were you rise the issue.

      Visa policy is substantial part of foreign policy between states. Alinor (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

      • So now you are accusing me of abuse? Alinor, please remember to assume good faith. Any attempt to disrupt Wikipedia policy and the AfD process may not be viewed kindly by admins. Alright? Foreign policy between states is important for them, but it's not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I assume good faith, that's why I am not accusing you, but this is really a general issue, not a particular page issue, so it should be discussed in a single place. You should have raised the issue at visa policy/passport/wikiproject international relations/similar place and not put so much proposed deletions/AfD templates - also, if I remember correctly there is a special "multiple pages AfD procedure". Alinor (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        • If foreign policy is not encyclopedic should we expect AfD on all foreign policy pages? I don't agree - foreign policy is important and notable. Alinor (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
          • 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) 14:35, 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Visa article flood of AFD nominations, where I suggest that we learn from history. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.

  A few hours ago Basket of Puppies went on a deletion spree suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[1]

  Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic.[2] That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.

  I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF:[3] bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep along with the others. encyclopedia content includes most of what would go into an almanac, and this is in that category DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 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.