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. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative, Library and Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced after a number of years, the article gives extremely too much detail, with no context. The title doesnt make sense compared to the article, and is an absolutely horrible title (no one could conceivably be looking for this subject matter under this title, and no one would guess that this title is referring to this content). the article reads like a page from an administative history of a school district, but gives no reason for why this is notable. if someone could have fixed this, it would have been done already. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a guide to British University staff pay grades, and this is unsourced and likely to go out-of-date with the next administrative upheaval. JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2009 (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.