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. Jytdog's argument is persuasive.  Sandstein  06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation approaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged for cleanup for almost a decade, and the page is almost entirely copied from Evaluation anyway. Famous_dog (c) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AfD is not clean-up. Might I suggest you propose a merge to Evaluation if you feel they're not sufficiently distinct. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete with fire. This is general mumbo-jumbo book reportish gunk. It should have been deleted back when it was created, as the same person who created this (diff) in Feb 2006, added the same content to evaluation at the same time (diff}. One of the deletion criteria is WP:A10 and the deletion policy says that any speedy criteria is good enough here. So even technically in the deletion policy this can go. but oy. Thanks to the nom for picking this up. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2017 (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.