Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of Fiji

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! 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Fiji[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). 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. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[2]

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] [4] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 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.