Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Visas for IT Workers

UK Visas for IT Workers

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)[reply]

Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderwing (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]