Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-1 visa

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 keep. Important Legal Doc. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-1 visa[edit]

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

This is a draft moved from draft-space to main space. I get cautious, seeing that this is done by a user blocked for spamming. I like to check if this is a valid and reliable article, above all suspicion. The Banner talk 22:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Did you actually do any BEFORE at all before nominating this? Or did you just expect us to do it for you? TJW^talk 22:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, otherwise I could not have know that the article-mover was a blocked spammer. And due to that, I have doubts about the reliability of this article. The Banner talk 00:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's... not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Did you do a news search? Did you do a scholarly search? Did you do an open web search? Did you do a book search? Did you search any university library you my have access to? Did you search any public archives you happen to know of? Did you look at similar articles and compare the sourcing? Did you do any of this or did you just nominate this because you expect us to do this for you? TJW ^talk 00:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm probably being obtuse, since you really don't seem to understand that these are the kinds of things that are expected. But they are the kinds of things that are expected. I highly recommend you withdraw this nomination, and also highly recommend you read through WP:BEFORE, and the relevant linked pages there. TJW ^talk 01:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not understand why I nominated. The Banner talk 01:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think you understand why things are nominated. We don't do AfD noms as "article checks" to see if they pass. We check articles to see if they are likely to pass and we nominate them with a clear deletion rationale, which you don't seem to have. TJW ^talk 01:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make it absolutely clear that you value the rules more than the quality and reliability of the encyclopaedia. Sad. So, I invoke WP:IAR. The Banner talk 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't immediately take the time to do WP:BEFORE, that's fine; nominate the article later when you can. But AfD is not a place to pass the buck to people whose time is less valuable than yours, and an editor who cares more about the encyclopedia than they do about rules, would probably consider withdrawing this before they waste any more time than this already has. TJW ^talk 10:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most other types of US visas have stand-alone articles, a merge to Visa policy of the United States wouldn't be appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly a significant legal document and process. On the first page of Google I found independent, reliable sources which show notability (this. I'm afraid this is quite a poor AfD. Also, other United States visa categories have standalone articles. This may appear as a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but it's not because the content is sourced or as I have shown can be sourced. Note: for some reason one of the sources I linked is on the blacklist so I've had to remove it. Will investigate further. DrStrauss talk 09:28, 11 September 2017 (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.