Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entry clearance


 * 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   merge. Will someone do so? Bearian (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Entry clearance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am nominating three articles relating to the immigration and customs and the United Kingdom. They are Entry clearance, Administrative removal, and Immigration Rules. These articles are WP:Original research, WP:Neologisms, lacking WP:Reliable Sources, and/or not WP:Notable. They should all be merged into an appropriate article such as an article on the custom's of the United Kingdom or the Immigration Policy of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) — Longthicknosnip (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note, nominator has been blocked as sock of user:FireTool87--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete ALL. I agree that they are unreferenced WP:OR without independent WP:RS and are not notable WP:GNG subjects in their own right.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't understand in what sense or respect Entry clearance is to be considered original research, a neologism, or lacking reliable sources. It would seem to me that the web page referred to in the article, which is a page published by the UK Border Agency of the Home Office, can be considered a reliable source with regard to entry requirements of the UK, and the terminology and information in the article are in close agreement with that provided on that web page. --Lambiam 01:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "and/or" as I used a template to refer to all three in general. It is original research because the topic is not notable, it is not not notable because it does not have multiple non trivial reliable references independent of the subject, the fact that there is no coverage and the article itself makes claims of any sort makes those claims original research because they are not verified statements. The Agency's website is not independent of the subject itself, notwithstanding that website is about the agency, which may be notable, this is just a term they use and is therefore a dictionary definition that belongs on the wiktionary.Longthicknosnip (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Could it be that the nominator is a reincarnation of User:FireTool87 (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713). --Lambiam 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not that person at all, I saw this debate before and saw it delisted and it was shot down appropriately because it was part of abusive mass AfD abuse, however this article and the other two related ones in and of themselves on their own merits (I believe) are not worthy here.


 * Merge to Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, preserving the contribution history under the redirect, per nom. Annoyingly, User:Nipsonanomhmata's "delete" !vote prevents this from happening speedily.— S Marshall  T/C 09:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Please see The development of British immigration law for an example of a substantial source covering this topic in detail. This demonstrates that the claims of the nomination - OR, not-notable, &c. are quite false.  Warden (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Close. Again, nom is advocating merging rather than deletion; that should be discussed on the talk page. (BTW, I can confirm entry clearance is a distinct immigration status in UK law and not a made-up term at all.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.