Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young University/Assessment

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  redirect to Content assessment. ✗ plicit  00:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young University/Assessment

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I initially added speedy deletion tag for violating copyright, according to my understanding of Copying within Wikipedia, but was informed that MFD was more appropriate. This is an exact copy of Content assessment with no attributions or links to the original; it doesn't provide any wikiproject specific information, and is prone to holding out of date information. It is therefore an unhelpful duplicate that'd fall under speedy deletion A10 if it were an article. N7fty (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You’re making a lot of fuss about something unimportant, and to the extent that it is important, why have you not talked to User:Jmjosh90? He made the common mistake of doing a copy-paste without noting the source in the edit summary.  Now look at the history.  The best thing to do is to get User:Jmjosh90 to agree to deletion, and make it again, or not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to make a lot of fuss; I just mean to be unambiguous about why I nominated it. I have posted a notice on User:Jmjosh90's talk page, and have yet to receive a response.
 * Though I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, I understand that if you think something is a candidate for deletion, you're welcome to nominate it, right?
 * Also, this newness to Wikipedia is why the history is how it is, between me initially putting it under speedy delete g12, User:The person who loves reading removing it and posting explanatory notes as dummy edits, and me putting MFD on it, and fixing a mistake in doing so. But no need to make a fuss right? Mistakes are ok and happen, and again, I don't mean to come across as one making a fuss about Jmjosh90's mistakes, I just want to be clear where I can-and hopefully in doing so I myself will make less mistakes. N7fty (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WP:Content assessment. No point in having the same guide copied twice if you're going to use the standard one. Most university WikiProjects I come across are usually maintained by no more than 2-3 editors and fall into disuse very soon, so over time the local copy will be pretty outdated, when we can avoid this. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.