Talk:Singapore passport

I think that nobody really cares this passport. Singaporean passport is nothing better than rubbish. Maybe one can hold it and get into many countries without visa, but so what? However, Singapore, where it is a hot outcrop like hell, can offer VERY poor consular protection. Will you believe that one may get consular protection overseas from that outcrop by holding that passport? I don't think so! I guess Singaporean is much better to apply a British passport and be a second class citizen as it was before independence, what do you think huh? 70.52.66.43 09:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numb guy "Rifleman", I don't think it is a stub now, am I right? 70.52.75.25 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove this tag and DO NOTHING, rather, improve or rewrite it. 70.52.75.43 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article is a stub or subjectively "poor" doesn't mean that it should be deleted. There's no requirement for the article to be edited at all according to the template used. Do take a look at it if you are uncertain. --Rifleman 82 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) This is the poorest topic I have never seen before (very poor quality). I wish you could delete it ASAP.70.52.75.43 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stub doesn't mean that this poor article is "immune" to be deleted. 70.52.75.25 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete it, then AfD it. Don't prod it. If you want it done, get it done right. --Rifleman 82 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT MY responsbility to get it done right, as you said. Watch your potty mouth! 70.52.75.25 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am not going to revert for a short while, but I will come back later and revert it. 70.52.75.25 20:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty figuring out if you have an issue with the article, the use Rifleman 82, or both. If the current state of the article is indeed the "poorest topic you have never seen before", mind tell us why so, for we are here to improve on articles, not delete them at your whimp and fancy? Meanwhile, my heartfelt congratulations to all other articles who somehow arent as "poor" as this one.--Huaiwei 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give it up! but I will come back a bit later and do sth at my whimp and fancy that you may object. well, do you think it is a good article? even a 3-year old kid can figure out. There is no owner here and every body can come here and edit it. 70.52.66.43 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I am here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here's how the process works:

If the article qualifies for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, then the first step is to tag the article for speedy deletion. However, this article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, so that isn't an option. And it shouldn't be tagged for speedy delete once it's been tagged by a prod (see next item).
If a deletion prod is removed, the person removing it should explain why, and how the article is planned to be improved. Stub articles need improvement, not necessarily deletion.
Once a deletion prod is removed, it must not be put back. The only avenue for deleting an article is to propose it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD). The consensus from the AfD discussion is binding.
Do not replace the prod. It would be considered vandalism at this point. Instead, assume good faith that the editor who removed it intends to improve the article. -Amatulic 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

There seems to be a dispute about a deletion tag in this article. {{Prod}} is only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. Anyone can remove it if they disagree that the article needs to be deleted. If it's removed and you still think it should be deleted, then there is a different tag that you can use, {{AFD}}. That process is a bit complicated, so be sure to ask if you need help listing it. I'd be willing to help you list it properly (whatever my thoughts as to whether the article should stay or go). ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back the prose

I liked this article better when it consisted of prose. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted lists. Please don't use bullet lists if they aren't necessary. And they aren't necessary here. -Amatulic 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]