Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative removal

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) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative removal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 • 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) 14:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, since a user entering this as a search term could be looking for several different things. Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, preserving the contribution history under the redirect, would need to be one of them; another would need to be Wikipedia:Deletion policy.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This process is quite notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as Immigration and criminal law in the European Union. The process is also used in the USA - see Migration Law in the USA, for example. Warden (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close and continue discussion as a merge debate. Whilst there are arguments for and against a stand-alone article, as the nom is proposing merging rather than deletion and there aren't large reams of text that would stand to be deleted by a merger, an AfD isn't the right forum for this. This is better done as a content discussion because merging will be complicated. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.