Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Website content writer

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. By the numbers this would be a "no consensus" but the primary premise of the nomination was refuted, and multiple sources were identifed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website content writer

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

Article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:OR. clearly shows this should not be an article on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, jargon or idiom guide. Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third sentences of that rationale don't match the article at hand. It isn't a dictionary article, nor is it a jargon guide. It's an article that purports to tell the reader about website content writers, what they do and how they do it. That's an encyclopaedia article. And since sources exist that document the job of web content writer, such as pages 38 et seq. of ISBN 9781583402573 for one example, fixing original research should be a simple exercise in this very discipline: content writing, using the editing tool. How does using the deletion tool achieve anything in the direction of that goal? Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the last five years or so, hasn't this profession been more or less equivalent to the previously existing occupation of "writer"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure "website content writer" is an appropriate topic for a separate article. I think writer and website should cover the relevant encyclopaedic material between them; I don't think it's helpful to have myriad tiny articles on very specific topics. I think it better to have fewer, larger articles, each with many facets or subheadings, which organises material in a way more friendly to end-users because it's all in front of them when they make a search. I also think it better to have larger articles watched and edited by many users, instead of small articles each maintained only by a handful.
I think such content that could be saved (which does not appear to be much) should be split up and merged.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and take care of), also as per UncleG. The article is really unsourced and probably contains a bit of WP:OR, but google hits are interesting: it seems this is indeed for real and it seems a specific and reasonably widespread kind of job. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, this is a tautological, self-explanatory noun phrase. No doubt Wikibooks might be able to profit from a set of instructions on "how to write for the Web", but I don't see this as an encyclopedia subject. The instant text contains "in today's world" texts that suggest promotional intent: In today’s world where an Internet presence is often critical to business survival, there are a variety of content writers out there that offer every company owner a chance to upgrade their sites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has serious problems, I agree, but deleting it won't help making it more encyclopedic (which looks entirely possible). --Cyclopia (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , retitle, and expand. There are quite a few books specifically on writing web content-- as distinct from the general topic of web site development. [1] seems to be the best known under various titles and editions , Other fairly recent ones are [2] , [3], [4], [5] whjile [6] will list a few thousand other possibilities. I checked via OCLC--Amazon would work also, or Google books. Why should we expect that this wouldn't be a subject for both self-instruction and academic courses at various levels? At least, why should we be so very sure that we wouldn't even bother to look? I never really expected people here would actually use a library, and I've learned they generally do not even search the web thoroughly or systematically, but are we no longer looking at even the most obvious of places? I'm quite surprised at the nominator, who is one of the people here who really does know better. Uncle G, of course, also knows better, and even after he found enough to indicate how much there is, people still gave their unsupported speculation only. I suggest we actually require WP:BEFORE--and not just the naïve mechanical checking of the exact phrase used in the title. . Perhaps we might even want to establish some willingness to investigate articles before commenting. If someone wants to write articles, we expect them to be willing to look for references; should we expect less of people who want to judge them? DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 27 August 2009 (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.