Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Visas for IT Workers


 * 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 Unfortunately "merge" option is not workable here per attribution rules: not a single reference of any quality.The original contributor is long gone. As a courtesy, I am copying this text into the talk page of the suggested merge target, to serve as keys for possible searches. `'mikka 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UK Visas for IT Workers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This scheme no longer exists, no one has shown any interest in updating it, and it is not notable enough to remain as historical information. Cordless Larry 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderwing (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it provides valuable historical information. Let's keep in mind that "if a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time". Stammer 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that this topic doesn't actually have any sources at all listed? I feel like both of these "Keep"s are just on the basis that an article shouldn't be deleted simply because it's not about a current issue, but there's so much else wrong with this article. Propaniac 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Is of historical interest.Drjem3 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per Thunderwing, I guess. This is a poorly-written and completely unreferenced article, written as if these schemes were still in use when apparently they're not. It makes sense that the schemes themselves should be recorded somewhere for historical interest, AS historical items, but the topic itself seems too narrow for its own article, and the content surely doesn't help to justify that. As a non-UK resident, I can't even tell if these schemes were important at all or just a small piece of bureaucracy. The article also includes an unattributed graph and some POV-junk--it's really not worth keeping, although it appears that the result of this AFD may be to keep the thing around just because nobody wants to put in an opinion on it. Propaniac 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Propaniac. This article is unsourced and unverified.  If it can be sourced or verified, I would love to see it merged, but right now, I really have a hard time justifying its continued existence.  --Vengeful Cynic 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: unlike Propaniac, I am a UK resident, and I'd never heard of this scheme. Merge anything salvagable (probably not much) into Immigration to the United Kingdom, then delete.  --RFBailey 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: To be honest, I don't know anything about this subject, but where is the first place I would go if I needed to look? Wiki of course. It's of Historical interest. However, it may be relevent to Merge the article with another which tells of more current schemes. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop relisting this article. If the administrator can't decide what the consensus is, declare it a "no consensus" keep, and let it be renominated later. One relisting should be sufficient. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete - it's not even a single scheme, and there's no reason for an article on UK immigration focussing solely on IT. JPD (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Thunderwing. Tim.bounceback( review me! 14:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom. Potentially useful information and historical context.  Deleting would be a mistake. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 20:29, 15 May 2007 (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.