Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henley Visa Restrictions Index

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 Delete. Good discussion, clear consensus per WP:N. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henley Visa Restrictions Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

We're told: The Henley Visa Restrictions Index is a global ranking of countries according to travel freedom their citizens enjoy. The top rank in the published list of selected countries is held by Finland, Denmark and the United States, with a score of 130 each (a score of 130 means that a citizen of Finland, may enter 130 countries and territories without a visa). The only reference of the article is to "Official Website" (so capitalized), which is not a website but instead a page, "International Visa Restrictions", that's part of a website put together by "Henley and Partners" ("H&P", a company that appears to be in the business of keeping rich people rich). I quote H&P's page: The Henley Visa Restrictions Index is a a [sic] global ranking of countries according to travel freedom their citizens enjoy. [...] The top rank is held by Finland, Denmark and the United States, with a score of 130 each (a score of 130 means that a citizen of, say, Finland, may enter 130 countries and territories without a visa).

Thus at least part of the article is a copyright violation. While this could easily be fixed via some paraphrasing, the larger problem is that this Wikipedia article is no more than a short preamble (however phrased) followed by the exact same list that's presented (without any particular evidence for credibility) by H&P (after a longer preamble). Essentially the article is an uncritical regurgitation of another single web page: there is no additional material, let alone any suggestion that H&P's list is significant in any way.

The article had a {{Notability}} flag on it since February 2008; in this latest edit, an IP has removed this flag (and made no other change) with the uninformative edit comment "fixup".

If WP is not a web directory, there is even less need for it to be a web regurgitator.

(This page is generously linked to, but many of these links will disappear once the somewhat misleading link "Travel Freedom" -- so capitalized -- is removed from within Template:Lists of countries.)

Hoary (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears straightforward copyvio, and it fails the general notability guidelines in WP:N: 'reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Might warrant a mention and ref on another page. Springnuts (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - while google hits aren't a measure of notability, there are 20,000 hits from various sources, so some people have found it interesting. Lots of IP edits though not much in the way of a discernible pattern. I agree with Springnuts, I think it does warrant a mention and ref on a more suitable page. BananaFiend (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would go so far to say that this in fact not so much copyright violation, as it is shameless self promotion. At best it is a mistake by a well meaning person who believes that this "Index" has some real merit. I have "consulted with senior immigration officials" (asked my wife who is executive level and deals with international movements but I can't say that so make sure that gets deleted...) here in Australia and certainly she'd never heard of it, and it certainly wouldn't be used by any Immigration/Customs department. Further research indicates that they are indeed a company of international renown - at least the rich of the world who are happy to drop cash and grease palms to ensure that they end up living and operating in the most tax/legal beneficial countries in the world. As this kind of "Forum Shopping" as it is known in international migration/immigration/refugee govt. circles could be illegal in some places (it is certainly a world wide problem which international organisations are trying to stop) I would strongly suggest that the article be deleted as well, on the grounds of neutrality or something. All in all - don't think it should be here. --Akitora (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as the person who nominated this for deletion, I'm surprised to find myself arguing with a delete vote, but intellectual honesty (or similar) seems to demand it. First, to claim that this is "shameless self-promotion", then shamelessness aside you'd need to show that it's promotional and (I suppose) written by H&P. Secondly, even if a list such as this were highly regarded (for example, published annually within a good newspaper such as Le Monde or Die Zeit), I don't see why any immigration official should have heard of it, and I certainly don't see why any should use it: after all, an immigration official is largely concerned with the border of one nation or territory, not those of others. Thirdly, I don't see why the provision of information about visa requirements should be illegal in any non-totalitarian nation. Fourthly, even if provision of this information seemed to facilitate illegality, this would be no reason for deletion: WP provides information about a host of matters that obviously have illicit applications. ¶ If this is promotional, it should indeed be deleted (unless radically rewritten); if you think that it's promotional, please give your reasoning. If you have another reason for deletion, please specify it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What a welcome to the wikipedia community! :) First I'd like to say thanks Hoary, for your warm welcome. I will indeed range wider than the AfD area :) Ah. The pitfalls of being bold without forethought. I thank you for pulling me up. I do indeed retract the accusation of "shameless" - it is completely unfounded. But I do like a challenge. So - a bit of a rebuttal.
      
      I'll start with point 2 - The "area" of immigration is extremely wide ranging. For instance - the role of my "senior immigration official contact" is research, policy creation, ministerial advice and making decisions on certain refugee cases. In all these activities she, just like Wikipedia, is required to get independent and unbiased third party citations and documentation to support something she might write or decide. She deals with customs and foreign affairs and security agencies, and certainly the visa and immigration laws of other nations are of relevance and concern to her as well as various sections in her department (document fraud springs to mind). A list like this that came from say, the UNHCR or within Academia, could well be used to back up say, changes to dual citizenship laws or to decide on a refugee who is claiming he comes from somewhere that restricts his travel and Immigration can not substantiate it with the authorities in his native country in case in endangers the potential refugee. (Hence why they would use such a list)
      
      If the Henley Index was authoritative, or considered a reliable and well known source, then it stands to reason that it would be known and referenced in such circles.
      
      On point three - I didn't say it should be... I'm saying that a centralised list like that, from a company such as Henley, lends itself to the facilitation of activities which are grey or illegal. That said - I stand educated on Wikipedia policy in this regard. Thank you :)
      
      Which leaves us with point 1, and the most salient. Dutifully I looked for evidence of self promotion, and again it would seem that I may have gone off a little half cocked eh? The original creator of the article, (Eddie) is a contributor of long and good standing, writes regularly on visa articles and one who appears to be currently active. The original talk page of the Article would seem to indicate that he knows something of the background and origins of the index as well if you read between the lines. Might I suggest that he be consulted in this matter as to the background etc of the index and his knowledge of it - this could certainly make the difference between a delete and a rescue or merge.
      
      Sorry that was so verbose - you asked :)
      
      I do however agree with SheffieldSteel and Gump Stump - there are no real secondary sources, and the original list has no sources or citations/references (although, granted, it would not be hard for us to actually research and determine ourselves no? rescue option?).
      
      As far as "Travel Freedom" goes, I don't think SheffieldSteel is on the right track in debating freedom vs. convenience. That this article is the only link from it - I think that it could be that people are actually trying to look up the overall term/concept Freedom_of_movement in Category:Human rights when they click on this. This might also the be appropriate page to use if merge is decided upon.
      
      I currently stand as: (a) rescue if it is viable to do the research ourselves, in essence making our own list, which would have to be kept updated no doubt - probably all by an appropriate project? (I know, not likely, but just putting it out there...) (b) merge, only as a footnote (ie: "Some third part for profit organisations have collated information on this subject, for example, the Henley Visa Restrictions Index (external link etc)) unless we can determine some sort of citations etc, prehaps from talking to Edebundity and (c) delete if there is no further obvious option - both for copyright and notability. The Travel Freedom link obviously needs dealing with in the template.--Akitora (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, good, a spirited and amicable reply! Thank you. ¶ Sorry, I'd been thinking of the lower (and more conspicuous) rungs on the ladder of immigration officialdom (I missed your "senior"). But I still don't suppose that higher-level officials would use such a list if it were good: as a single web page, no matter how scrupulously edited and updated, it's bound to simplify and to be less up to date than other sources. ¶ I've just now left a message for Eddie; thank you for the nudge in that direction. -- Hoary (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Being able to visit a country without a visa is not a freedom; it is a matter of convenience. One might as well argue that freedom to drive is restricted in countries requiring a driving license. On this basis I support Hoary's proposal to remove the misleading "Travel Freedom" link. Having said that, I believe the page should be deleted as it is simply a duplication of copyrighted material here with the addition of pretty flags and some waffle (these countries are top, and those are at the bottom of the list). And that's not surprising - in the absence of secondary sources discussing the "Index" (rather than making trivial mention and regurgitating the results), there's no article content we could write. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think this qualifies as self promotion (and the most insidious case I've ever seen on Wikipedia). It seems like the entire function of the index (listed here) is to direct people to their website, where countries such as Austria and Dominica are bolded and underlined; it just so happens that 'Henley & Partners' have offices in these countries to help you invest your fortune! Even more suspect is that aside from a single reference to the year of compilation (2006) they give no methodology, and show no references; an intellectually honest international ranking has independent and explicit sources. An index like this is interesting and certainly could be a useful measure of travel convenience, but I don't think this particular version should be used or referred to on Wiki. - Gump Stump (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge HVRI is a notable subject and are used by the media in describing how 'free' or how good foreign relations are in relation to another country. That said, this article is a copyvio and doesn't serve much purposes as most of the passport pages already have mentioned the HVRI ranking.--Cahk (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure how the index indicates foreign relations, but if you know for a fact that it is indeed used by the media then it'd be great if you could provide some citations or references for it. That would certainly help the merge argument. :) --Akitora (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It establish how good foreign relations are because visa-free arrangements are generally reciprocal and requires negotiations between the countries concerned.[1][2] and also an article titled 'Emerging-market indicators' published in Economist Vol. 378 Issue 8464.--Cahk (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the citations. I'll try track down a web link to the Economist article. On the topic of foreign relations, visa free arrangements are reciprocal usually in First World / Western States. To make the comment general and sweeping, does not take into account those countries which have no visa system in place, types of visa's and length of stay and situations like the Schengen "acquis". In today's world of global trade and international tourism, even a deteriorating of foreign relations between states will rarely if ever change existing border control policy - for instance, a country like China might not have the most cordial of relations with the rest of the world, but they are not going to turn away foreign tourism and investment in a hurry. I guess another way of putting it is that international relations are fluid and dynamic while border control, being infrastructure dependent, bureaucratically driven and of economic importance tends to be more static and very slow to change.

A situation like the Schengen "aquis" raises a curious point - how does the index take into account a situation say where of all the Schengen countries, a third country has visa-free travel with only one member. Let's say Peru and the Czech Republic have such an agreement, and a visa is needed by Peruvians to enter other countries, such as Germany or Belgium. My understanding of the current Schengen system is that the Peruvian traveller could enter the Czech Republic without a visa, and then go to Berlin under the terms of Schengen, visa free. (Note - all travellers still need valid passports and ID etc... just no visa.) All in all I'm still leaning towards the Henley Index article going delete and being made an external link or a mention in the Freedom of Movement or Visa articles (or the like).Akitora (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't establish how this index is notable. The internet is full of non-notable websites listing visa requirments etc, and nothing in the Wikipedia article demonstrates that this index is any more notable than any of the others. Passportguy (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:ab}]