The result was delete. overall consensus is for deletion, with valid arguments being made citing NOT, indiscriminate info, WP:NOR, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, looks a lot like a hoax. I can't find any sources for this information at all and it seems quite factually implausible.
An ANI/I thread discusses this article. Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to give a short history of this type of pages. They used to be part of the corresponding passport pages (e.g. the Mexican passport would have a section on visa requirements for Mexicans. A general discussion was held at Talk:passport (Talk:Passport/Archive_2 and Talk:Passport/Archive_3) and whether there was a valid reason to have this info on the corresponding passport page. 1st concensus: no, they should go
2nd consensus: no, they should not be at the corresponding passport page, but they merit their own article. That why they were all created (beginning 2010). This consensus was quite sensitive and I suppose that most who discussed still have passport on their watchlist.