Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British university Pro Vice-Chancellors and Treasurers


 * 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   delete. X clamation point  03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of British university Pro Vice-Chancellors and Treasurers

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

This article doesn't say anything. It promises to say something and then is completely devoid of useful information. Either put the information in there right now or get rid of it. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not sure why this information is even useful. A list of chancellors and vice-chancellors and of heads of Oxbridge colleges is manifestly worthwhile, by pro-vice-chancellors and treasurers, while meriting their own articles, don't seem to me to need a list. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No content (in fact this article may meet the WP:CSD A3 "no content" criterion). brianlucas (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since the article has remained this way since January 2008.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * we do not delete articles for not being improved. If your only complaant is that nobody has worked on it, that's easy enough for your to fix. We delete them because they cannot be improved. DGG (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't delete articles that are in need of improvement, but in this case, the article, despite it's paragraph of text, is completely free of content. Its deletion does not preclude the recreation of an article that actually contains content.  If it were even a partial list, I could support keeping.  This article arguably could have been deleted with db-nocontent, so delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, does somebody want to create the article? (Since creating it from the start is effectively what needs to be done, despite the introductory paragraph.) Is it an article that is worth creating? Does anybody want to know who are the pro-vice-chancellors and treasurers of British universities?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (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.