Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa support to Russia

Visa support to Russia

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 Speedy delete (G12) by Fuhghettaboutit. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced how-to guide per WP:NOTHOWTO, with sales links for visa service companies inline, which the WP:SPA creator re-added when I tried to remove them [1]. There's very little else here that can be merged to Visa policy of Russia. Article was prodded on the same grounds on 21 April, and the following day article creator de-prodded after removing one sentence [2]. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, the article is not unreferenced. It cites a government decree, an order of the ministry of foreign affairs, and an order of the federal migration service. I'm not sure this is "how to" content either. I am wondering if it is an attempt to describe rules of law or government policy. James500 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@James500:- examples of how-to content include:

The agency will give you a telex (digitally transmitted directly to the consulate)
As a usual, visa support documents is an extra paid service, but some services are free. Some hotels provide it free of charge, if you book a room and make a deposit.
Agencies which provides invitation for tourist visa will give a scanned copy (per e-mail) both of the original Reservation confirmation and the Tourist voucher.
Originals can be sent by post when required by the consulate (normally the copies are sufficient).

etc., like an entry from Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. But I agree that the last section, "Legislative and regulatory framework", describes govt policy and could be merged to Visa policy of Russia. There's no need for a separate article on this document, though. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three examples of "how to" content don't make the entire article "how to" content. I was primarily thinking of the section headed "Description of visa support document." It seems to me that, in legal writing, rules of law are often expressed as imperatives (eg writing "A must do X" when we really mean "A has a duty to do X under enactment B, and certain legal consequences, Y, follow if he doesn't"). I am wondering if that is what the author of this article was doing. The lack of in-line citations makes this difficult for me to assess, but I imagine the content of the section might reflect the content of the decree and orders listed at the end of the article. Are you sufficiently familiar with this subject that you can tell me that the content of that section does not consist of propositions of law or government policy (ie a description of mandatory requirements imposed by the Russian government)? James500 (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references at all, let alone any reliable sources. Searching via Google does not show that "Visa support to Russia" is a particular term of art. Perhaps there is an article regarding Russian visas to which this can be merged and redirected?--Rpclod (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is manifest nonsense. You know perfectly well that legislation is the best possible reliable source (because the law is what the legislator says it is) and a search for "visa support"+ Russia does return sources for the document called "visa support" (though I'm not sure if "visa support to Russia" is grammatically correct). James500 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also worth pointing out that "visa support" is a obviously a translation into English. Most of the sources for this will be in the Russian language. What is this document called in Russian? You can't assess notability without knowing that. You can't assess it by looking for "visa support to Russia", because that is English. James500 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep, mainly to balance out the manifest nonsense in the !vote immediately above. James500 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam I speak Russian and this is not notable. A visa support document is just some of the paperwork you need to submit that explains why you are going there. There is nothing particularly notable about this one. It can be summarized in one sentence in the visa policy article. In Russian it is "визовая поддержка" (literally "visa support" - they translated it directly): there are hundreds or thousands of businesses that offer their services for these if you use their services. This article was created as a way to advertise one of these businesses: it was created by an account with no other edits and the first draft included a link to one of these businesses. And then they stuck the link back in after it was removed. FYI James500 please don't vote to keep things unless you have an actual reason to do so - you voted "provisional keep" for WP:ARTSPAM for no reason except you thought the others (who were correct) were espousing "manifest nonsense." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12 as copyright infringement of this website. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:-- I remind the nominator to always check for possible copyvio before bringing articles to AfD. The article is actually an obvious candidate for speedy deletion per G11 and G12, I really don't expect to see it here. @Wikimandia: I flagged the article for speedy deletion per G11 and G12. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology - I didn't even think to check for copyvio - that's the site they are advertising so I'm not surprised! Thank you, and thanks also to Dai Pritchard for PROD this page in the first place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:21, 9 May 2015 (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.