Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of Canada

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! 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Canada[edit]

(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 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another failure of WP:BEFORE news articles show plenty of discussion both by Canadian media and other countries over Canada's visa policies, including criticisms.[1] an interested editor would have no trouble writing an encyclopedic article about the history of various visa policies, how decisions came about, etc. For example [hhttp://www.globalvisas.com/news/report_calls_for_review_of_canadian_temporary_work_visa_policy1440.html], [2], etc--Crossmr (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the same reasons described in previous visa policy AFD's. I also strongly agree with Crossmr's point on Canadian visa policies in particular. I would be willing to put some time into expanding this article. ◈ithinkhelikesit 23:51, 26 August 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.