Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growing Esteem


 * 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 Redirected to University of Melbourne. Content already merged. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent&#39;s Choice 07:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Growing Esteem

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This material has just been copy/pasted from the relevant subheading on University of Melbourne. Given it is highly specific to UniMelb, there is no reason for it to have a page in its own right. Especially since it adds nothing new from the original section. Suicup 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is how to do it but, i've stated why there needs to be an extra site specifically dealing with growing esteem: Growing Esteem is significant because it is seen by some as a harbinger of a new two-tiered higher education system in Australia. The plan has been endorsed by the federal government as part of its plans to 'diversify' higher education institutions.

It is an important plan of greater significance than just melbourne university. I believe there may be a significant amount of searches on wikipedia for 'growing esteem', and if this article is deleted people will not be able to find anything. Maxyk 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into University of Melbourne. If really pushed, create a redirect.  The Rambling Man 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: this has a relationship with the implementation of the Bologna process in Australia, which is likely to become an important issue, although I'm not sure that this article is a useful contribution to the subject.--Grahamec 00:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, probably important enough to be mentioned in the university article, but there's no way this is notable enough for its own article. Lankiveil 02:38, 3 February 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.