Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angolan passport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Angolan passport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the information after the first sentence is about Angolan passports (WP:COATRACK), and the first sentence does nothing but state tautologically that an Angolan passport is a passport issued to Angolans, so removal of the part after the first sentence would leave a virtually content-free article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most passport articles (e.g, US, Brazilian, Indian) include a section on the visa-free travel available to holders of that passport. That seems pretty directly relevant and not coatracky. --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be like creating an article about Angolan people with the title Angolan birth certificate, and saying that all the information in it applies to people having an Angolan birth certificate. If there are already other articles set up the same way, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Perhaps the problem is not that irrelevant material has been placed under these titles but that the choice of title for all these articles was poor and they should all be renamed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a stub about a notable topic. I linked to other articles to show what this information looks like in the context of a more complete article. It's certainly undue emphasis in the stub as it exists now, but once the article has been expanded it will be appropriate. I really don't see how this is irrelevant material. The whole point of a passport is that it confers certain travel rights. Where you can travel with just a passport is a big part of that. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Information about documents other than your passport that governments require you to possess in order to visit their countries is not information about your passport. Listing these other requirements in an article whose title says it's about passports is somewhat like editing an article with the title United States birth certificate to add information on documents in addition to a birth certificate (proof of residency, vaccination certificates, etc.) that one needs to register one's child in a public school, or to get a driver's license, or to register to vote. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly a "list of countries requiring a visa" would be out of place in such an article. But this is the opposite sort of list. This is a list of countries where Angolan passport holders either (a) don't need a visa or (b) don't need to get a visa in advance. That seems pretty focused on what the passport itself lets you do. (One could quibble a bit about "visa on arrival" countries; they're sort of in-between.) I think analogies between passports and birth certificates break down as passports are narrowly focused on travel while birth certificates have a zillion uses beyond their primary function of documenting a birth. --Chris Johnson (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Information about documents other than your passport that governments require you to possess in order to visit their countries is not information about your passport. Listing these other requirements in an article whose title says it's about passports is somewhat like editing an article with the title United States birth certificate to add information on documents in addition to a birth certificate (proof of residency, vaccination certificates, etc.) that one needs to register one's child in a public school, or to get a driver's license, or to register to vote. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a stub about a notable topic. I linked to other articles to show what this information looks like in the context of a more complete article. It's certainly undue emphasis in the stub as it exists now, but once the article has been expanded it will be appropriate. I really don't see how this is irrelevant material. The whole point of a passport is that it confers certain travel rights. Where you can travel with just a passport is a big part of that. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be like creating an article about Angolan people with the title Angolan birth certificate, and saying that all the information in it applies to people having an Angolan birth certificate. If there are already other articles set up the same way, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Perhaps the problem is not that irrelevant material has been placed under these titles but that the choice of title for all these articles was poor and they should all be renamed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Of the 140 passport articles we have, 88 are stubs like this. In my opinion the national passport of a sovereign state is an inherently notable topic, and the stubs should be expanded rather than deleted. In any case it would be really strange to single out the Angolan passport stub for sacrifice on the AFD altar. --Lambiam 14:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your last point, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding whether these articles are valid stubs:
- With respect to the tables of entry requirements, I don't think that that is really information about the visitor's passport, but I've given my thoughts on that and I won't belabor them.
- With respect to the "stub" at the top, if someone created an article titled Brown dog and its sole text were "A brown dog is a dog that is brown, I wouldn't consider that a valid stub, and I'd nominate it for deletion. The only reason to have an article is to have something to present to people looking for information on the article's topic. There is no reason for the reader to prefer to find an article, only to find that all it says is a triviality, over not finding an article. Anyone who does have useful content with which to create such an article can just as easily create it later. The fact that the title subject itself is notable isn't sufficient. If it were, Wikipedia's recommendation for people who want someone else to create an article would be "Create an empty article" rather than to add a request to WP:Articles for creation, and there wouldn't be a provision for speedy deletion of empty articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your last point, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding whether these articles are valid stubs:
- Keep as per Lambiams' comments--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chris Johnson's comments. Stub contains valid information which would remain present in a complete article. Gruntler (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd remove it in a fuller article as WP:COATRACK content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as part of a series. No valid reason provided to discriminate against Albania or this article Hmains (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't discriminating. This was the article I saw, and it seemed to bear consideration for deletion for the reasons I gave. I will again ask that people read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before giving the reasoning that it's like other articles. Perhaps the whole lot merits deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added some non-trivial (though very boring) information to the article's lead. At this point I think it would be a valid short stub even if the information Largo Plazo objects to were removed. (I still don't think it should be removed, but I won't belabor my point either.) I think the larger question of what information belongs in passport articles is better discussed wherever centralized discussions about passport articles are held. I'm really not sure where that is, but Template talk:Passports might work. --Chris Johnson (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2009 (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.