Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copy (written)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Copy (written)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced dictionary definition, tagged as such since December 2009. Probably no content worth merging into other articles. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 18:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. Looks like I started the article in question way back in 2004 and that was when I first started editing Wikipedia. I'm not really familiar with the policies/guidelines about dictionary defs. One thing voters on this matter might be interested to look at is the second edit in the article's history which was my apparent attempt to avoid the article being a dictionary definition. I'm not saying it's any good! I'm just offering the idea that it may be plausible to save the article from being a simple dic-def. I would also say that I don't know what the policies/guidelines are on having articles link to a dic-def (presumably to Wiktionary) and when/how an article can usefully link to a dic-def to help another article's reader. But I'm not going to be angry if the article is deleted if that's the consensus. I have gone the great majority of the time these last years with no involvement with Wikipedia at all although, by happenstance, I did take to checking my Watchlist semi-regularly again a week or two ago. Also, please forgive if the formatting of my contribution here isn't up to scratch. By all means put this edit into a more suitable format if it helps keep this page tidy without changing the meaning of my contribution. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a dictionary definition; it's a stub – see WP:DICDEF, which explains the difference. The topic is notable and so can readily be expanded from sources such as Translation of Thought to Written Text While Composing; Broadcast News Writing, Reporting, and Producing; How Advertising is Written--and Why; On the Art of Writing Copy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Reads like what I'd expect to find in a dictionary, except perhaps a bit more detailed. If it's in fact a stub, then the theory is that it could later be expanded into a proper encyclopaedia article. But it's hard for mew to imagine what that article might be like, other than an WP:OR-filled essay on the technique of copy-writing. What else is there to say about it? And why hasn't someone said it, these 14 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDemeanour (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this used to be a commonly used newspaper term. It seems likely there are many guides covering what copy is and how to write it. I am not offering to improve it, but I believe it is possible. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. Capable of expansion beyond a definition. James500 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some information to show that it can be expanded. I might be able to contribute more once I find more materials. - Darwin Naz (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2018 (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.