Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical writing for the Web


 * 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   Transwiki. Transwiki  MBisanz  talk 07:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Technical writing for the Web

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

Seems to be entirely made of original research. Also, I don't see how this is encyclopedic. It seems to be more of a collection of tips on web design. EDIT: Looking back, it's not so much original research as a collection of random facts from various sources.  KJS 77  04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the inputs. This is my first article on Wikipedia and am orienting towards the appropriate content, presentation and formatting. My intent is to make this article encycolpedic. What I have put forth is just part of the overall content and am referring to around 20 authentic references in the area of Technical communication as regards to World Wide Web. I will be extending the article to comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. You can either hold on to this starter page or go ahead and delete it, till I come up with the final content. Ashok Ambashanker 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * It does seem to be something of a how-to, and I doubt that there's any more agreement on how to write technical documents for the web than there is on writing elsewhere. WillOakland (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Author is recommended to publish on an how-to site. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted the revised version. Please review and if compliant to Wikipedia standards, kindly remove this article from the deletion list. Ashok Ambashanker 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT - perhaps it can be transwiki'd somewhere? Where do the howtos live anyway? Books? -- samj in out 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I can understand the argument for deletion in that this appears to be a novel synthesis of material from disparate sources, put together in such a way that it appears to constitute original research.  But on the other hand, I can also see arguments to keep this: (1) I think it's a sin against our founding principles to remove well-sourced material from Wikipedia unless that material appears elsewhere on the site (see WP:PRESERVE), so if it's decided to delete the article, I would be grateful if the material could be userfied (either to the original author's wikipedia space or to mine); and (2) it should probably be reviewed by those interested in the Wikipedia manual of style to see if there's anything they can usefully incorporate.
 * The following remarks don't form part of an argument to keep the article, but I found it interesting, relevant and well-researched.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like a guide to teach writers how to write for the web. I'd say move to Wikibooks. - Mgm|(talk) 20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (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.