Immigration under New Labour from 1997 - 2010 : The references are either non-existent or come from very selective quoting of existing news articles, and it does not offer a balanced view of the issue.  It seems astonishing that it has the bold (unreferenced) claim "the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom" in the opening paragraph, which is essentially meaninglees given that ethnic demography is a constantly-changing thing.  This seems to be an article solely created to prove some kind of nebulous political point.  Some might argue that there is scope for the page to be improved and given a neutral point of view - I would be included to say that the best thing to do would be to merge a small amount of the content here to Immigration policy of the United Kingdom .  It is notable that there is no comparable page for the immigration policies of any other government of the UK, which seems to also add to the suggestion that this page is being used as some kind of coatrack to air partisan grievances about a particular government.  Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header.   Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) SparksSparksSparks ( talk ) 15:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agreed with nom, a textbook coatrack article heavy on WP:SYNTH and arbitrarily focused on a particular window of time without clear explanation why.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do I need to fill out a form stating "Why did you make this article", where do I fill it in, can you direct me to it?  Tweedle ( talk ) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per OP.  Does seem to clearly be written to make a political point.  Heavy WP:SYNTH as Skynxnex says.  — Czello ( music ) 18:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SYNTH – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Could just be article about immigration to the UK during that period, Labour or not being in power doesn't really matter...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is true but why that particular period?  There is already a general article about UK immigration policy as mentioned above, the time period isn't particularly notable (the period from 1948 - 1962 is much more notable in terms of UK immigration policy), and there aren't any other articles about other time periods anyway.  SparksSparksSparks ( talk ) 10:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK so if I had instead created an article detailing 1948 to 1962 immigration policy would you have started an AfD calling for the removal of that article because "there aren't other articles covering it so why have that one"?  Yes or no?  Tweedle ( talk ) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would have suggested it be merged into the main article Immigration policy of the United Kingdom , which seems a much better place to list immigration policy than a series of articles about arbitrary time periods.  SparksSparksSparks ( talk ) 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep lack of comparable articles is irrelevant in terms of a notability discussion; WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST .  There are numerous reliable source texts covering precisely this topic (the first two are book length academic texts): Labour's Immigration Policy: The Making of the Migration State (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) , Immigration Under New Labour (Bristol University Press, 2007) , How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story (The Guardian, 2015) , The Immigration Legacy of Tony Blair (Migration Policy Instittue, 2007) , Immigration Under New Labour: Policy and Effects (Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2011) .  Throughout the New Labour period, there was a vast amount of media reporting on the issue (and FWIW, there continues to be).   The article does not appear to be a case of WP:TNT , the only issues raised above are specific content issues, that can be handled with minor cleanup.  For example, this sentence "during this period around 2.2 million immigrants entered the United Kingdom,[3] the salience of the issue of immigration rose to one of the most prominent political issues in the country,[4] and the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom."  Is there anything there which is factually incorrect?   Yes, I can quibble with the language of the last clause (is it net migration? is it comparable to other similar countries? University of Oxford's Migration Observatory provides good sourcing for these kinds of issues), but, to reiterate, I'm not seeing enough evidence that this is WP:TNT worthy.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Entire AfD rests on a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy.  If the charge being levelled at me by extension of this articles creation is that I didn't have enough time to cover every single other period of migration policy in British history, then well I'm going to have to declare myself GUILTY!  "The references are either non-existent or come from very selective quoting of existing news articles"  Fascinating to find out that the Telegraph, the Guardian, the BBC, the Migration Observatory, Migration Policy and Will Somerville's book are 'very selective quoting or non-existent' sourcing.  Thanks for that insight!  "astonishing that it has the bold (unreferenced) claim "the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom" in the opening paragraph, which is essentially meaninglees given that ethnic demography is a constantly-changing thing" Claims in the lead which are substationed in the body of the text do not need a reference (can't remember the exact WP:RULE name forgive me but someone down here will be able to verify this for me) if there are plenty of references covering it but besides that you literally state in the same breath that the claim is true, which it is, but that it's 'meaningless because its always happening' so what is the gripe here?  Remove it for all I care and for the rest of the claims of language you can change around, that's still not a reason for deleting the article lol "It is notable that there is no comparable page for the immigration policies of any other government of the UK, which seems to also add to the suggestion that this page is being used as some kind of coatrack to air partisan grievances about a particular government."  No again it's not, you are free to cover whatever 'scholarly' topic you want on here granted that there is enough sources warranting for it to be its own separate article (which there is in this case as the sources on this article are atm and the above user has shown).  Tweedle ( talk ) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the title already broadcasts the POV nature of the page.  I was initially pondering a possible merger into Immigration policy of the United Kingdom or Modern immigration to the United Kingdom , but the combative attitude of the author here makes me fear the target of such a merger would, in turn, become the new political battleground for this content.  And frankly, there's just not enough encyclopedic content here to justify wasting editors' time with soch POV battles.  Owen× ☎ 19:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , in my opinion this is textbook WP:SYNTH - the sources back up each individual statement but their collection together as a subject is done purely by us, which is not how we should be covering article subjects.  Daniel ( talk ) 00:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a case of WP:SYNTH and some original researches.  Freinland ( talk ) 07:48, 9 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete