Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarratt report


 * 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. Listed for 19 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jarratt report

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. Article is extremely vague as to the importance of this report. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I used fairly modest language, and perhaps this masked the notability and importance of the report. It is one of two major reports which lead to large-scale changes in the nature of British Universities. It is a subject of a recent book on the history of British Universities, and has been claimed to be a critical move, requested by university management, to aggregate power away from collegial academic systems an into a managerial system... Perhaps there is a page into which it can be merged, but failing such a suggestion, it should be left .Tim bates (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  02:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep There are many sources Google books has well over a hundred , and Google scholar has even more.  .Even  G. News archive has some.  What happened to WP:BEFORE?    DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely notable, the article could use some more citation. --Milowent (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (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.