Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writing Stories


 * 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. Clearly, this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and this debate entered snowball country some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing Stories

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. Incidentally, editor is claiming ownership on the talk page. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a violation of WP:NOT and a fork of Creative writing. Claritas (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think any speedy criteria apply here.--Rockfang (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. I agree with Rockfang in that none of the CSD would seem to apply, however WP:SNOW may apply. Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are other wikis where something like this might work, though I can't think of one off the top of my head. Wikihow, maybe? The tone is not encyclopedic - it's a how-to. There are no sources, it's just the opinion of the author, who offers to review suggestions before deciding whether to incorporate them into their article (!). Don't see how we can keep this one, though I agree that none of the Speedy criteria apply. I believe the title should be Redirected to Fiction writing, or some similar target, since redirects are cheap and it's really not that unreasonable a title. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete tag added. "Writing Stories something fun." This is patent nonsense and should be deleted. No need for AFD. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to all, speedy certainly does apply here: "consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. Also, this is a "how-to" article of no encyclopedic value. There's no way this isn't speedy. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. While I agree that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia and will almost certainly be deleted as a result of this discussion, the text is coherent, just poorly written. Poor writing is specifically excluded from the patent nonsense criterion. WP:HOWTO is not a criteria for speedy deletion either. Actually you probably meant WP:NOTHOWTO anyway. Speedy declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow delete, please. No purpose is served by dragging this matter out.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom that it's a combo of OR and how-to. I agree with the comments that this doesn't fall into a speedy category, but as S Marshall said, I think we're at least close to the point where SNOW could reasonably be used.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * redirect to Writing process. Although no merger should be carried out, so deletion is OK to.  Taemyr (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete' - This is very obviously a how-to guide and we don't like them. I also doubt that this can become an article of encyclopedic value. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  15:13, 6 May 2010 (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.