Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham marriage in the United Kingdom

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 keep. bd2412 T 04:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sham marriage in the United Kingdom

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As User:Po8crg noted, this article "appears to be a Migration Watch press release lightly rewritten to look like a wikipedia article". The article is grossly unbalanced, and relies on a single news article and a very brief and quite poorly written "briefing paper" by a group which lobbies for fewer migrants in the UK. Both of these sources are over 10 years old, despite many recent developments in the area over the course of Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary. It is not clear to me that this topic meets notability guidelines, and why it shouldn't form part of an article such as United Kingdom immigration law, although as I have said, its current content is of very low quality, and in my opinion should be completely discarded if this is the course taken. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge into Sham marriage: This looks more like a WP:NOTNEWS case. This particular case does not seem to deem it's own article as it is a REDUNDANTFORK any valid information should be added to the existing Marriage#Marriage_of_Convenience section. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With what E.M.Gregory brings up and since we already have an article about sham marriages and this one does not add too much to that topic it should just be merged into the existing article. It still falls under WP:REDUNDANTFORK. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we do have Green card marriage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion as other things exsist McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that laws and social conditions vary from country to country making it appropriate to have separate articles, Green card marriage for the U.S., Sham marriage in the United Kingdom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sham marriage in the U.K. is a notable topic that can support a serious article. These sources offer a sample of the scope of sourcing that esists:

Financial Times, 2018, Crackdown on sham marriages leaves migrants in limbo.
The Guardian 2018: Couples face 'insulting' checks in sham marriage crackdown
Deccan Herald 2011: 5 Pakistanis jailed for running 'sham' marriage gang in UK
The Daily Telegraph 2014: Sham marriage a 'massive loophole' in Britain's border; Chief Inspector of Borders warns bogus marriage may be a "growing problem" but authorities are failing to report their concerns to the Home Office
Helena Wray, Regulating Marriage Migration into the UK: A Stranger in the Home, Routledge, 2016 [1], [2], [3].
Bridget Anderson, Us and Them?: The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control Oxford University Press, 2013: [4]

In sum, the page just needs an editor willing ot upgrade it. I tagged it REFIMPROVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sham marriage is a thing that can happen anywhere, though what is really unique in the UK case that merit it an independent article? I failed to see. If it serves to include individual cases, we may eventual find ourselves in violation of BLP policy. Viztor (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, E.M.Gregory's list above shows that it has been covered over a sustained period by reliable sources, as for merging it into the parent article Sham marriage, that does need improving, but it is/should not be just about britain but a world view about this subject with breakout articles, when enough sources warrant it, like this one. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreeing with Coolababble and M.E.Gregory.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2019 (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.