Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Passport

:{{la|World Passport}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Passport Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|World Passport}})

WP:NOTMANUAL. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This article is not trying to be a manual of the subject. Well sourced. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. well sourced. not a manual.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. A good article will often include some description of how its subject works, but that doesn't make it a manual. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Illogical. I think we should keep this Jim. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Some cleanup may be needed, but the article is not a viable candidate for deletion. It is well sourced and easily passes WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The nominator fails to provide any relevant rationale for deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.