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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic how to article. Also, original research. Shadowjams (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off for now. Yes, it looks like it will be WP:OR. But it's what, about half an hour old? And the editor has a construction tag on it. Let's just give him some breathing room, okay? Unschool 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm now satisfied that this isn't going anywhere. Unschool 06:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
suggest Shadowjams, withdraw the AfD, until the editor has had a chance. It can be resubmitted later if appropraite. Jeepday (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article based on pedagogical conventions inflicted on children (trust me, I'm employed in the industry), such as this, that have nothing to do with real composition of prose. Let's not pretend that there's anything amenable to encyclopedic treatment here. Deor (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete English Grammar already covered. How To's (shriek - apostrophe mistake!!!) are not for Wikipedia. Necessarily POV & OR / unreliable sources, since it's a style guide. Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deor is correct. To put it another way, "The six traits of writing" can only exist as the name of a product, for instance, or a trademarked method, since there is no such thing as "THE six traits." There are lots of traits of writing (or few, or none, depending on how you look at things), and this here can only be an encyclopedic article if there is something called this. There isn't, unless it's something like what Deor submitted--and that can hardly be, or it would have been mentioned in this stub. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I'm in this business also. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the slow down sentiment, but frankly it's not a reason to withdraw an Afd (if that were even a recognized approach). There's a built in 5 day slow-down on Afds, and the afds as a general rule are interested in the topic and not the article itself. This topic is not inherently notable. It doesn't come from a book or other academic source, it isn't unique (we already have grammar and writing articles that are encyclopedic). More importantly, the basic topic at best would suggest a how-to article. Five days is a long time to improve an article, and if at the end it is, then the consensus will suggest it shouldn't be kept. However, right now, and I suspect in 5 days, it won't be. Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A respectable viewpoint, to be sure, Shadow, but unless something is clearly material for a CSD (which I recognize some have said of this article), I just think that it's bad sportsmanship to nominate an article for deletion a mere eight minutes after its creation. I can certainly understand concern, once the article comes across one's radar, that the article might "slip past" our eyes, but there are other solutions, such as watchlisting. Or how about simply keeping a list of articles to revisit, on one's own userpage, with a time stamp. You (or any other editor watching your list) could go back and check on the article after, say, six hours, and then propose an AfD if it was still trash. I know you did nothing wrong, and you have certainly been shown here to have been correct. I'm just suggesting an alternate way of handling such matters. In any event, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my (temporary) objection. Unschool 06:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no articulation of notability, appears to be an OR (or at least unsourced) essay-outline or perhaps a 'how to'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The issue really isn't that the article is a "how-to" ... this article could be transformed into a description of the teaching method described, as this appears to be an overview of the writing education used in the Madison, Wisconsin school system. The real question is whether we need an article on writing education as practiced in Madison, Wisconsin, and I don't think that qualifies under WP:N without some strong evidence that the Madison program is widely used as a basis for educational programs or widely discussed.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only in Wisconsion. What are you, crazy? It's used in all middle and high schools across the world. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do you have a WP:RS for this sweeping claim? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the fact that it's taught in the high school that I go to in my city, smarty-pants! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's two. Four million or so to go. I know they don't use it here ... our course in English writing is conducted in Papiamentu, and generally compares and contrasts it with Dutch.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's zero, as a RS was cited for neither. :) But the egocentricity of "it's taught in the high school that I go to in my city" = "all middle and high schools across the world" is quite breathtaking. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A1 (no context). caknuck°is a silly pudding 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at presence this article loks like a glov of original research, buit i did osme quick gogoling and it turns out that this concept is used throughout the us as a Teahcing Tool for the education of writing. For example, it smentioned here at the Edina tteaching website, here at the Center for Teaching Advancement webpage, against a Teaching That Makes Sense training website, again here at the Reynolds Institute, a prestigious institutaiton, and it even has a book atout which is avialable on this lit website. I am reviewing WP:RS to determine whether or not htise constitute reliable sources; if anyone can help me decide or adjucdicate this matter it may help to inform this debate, thank you for your consideration. 04:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources can be a red herring on these sorts of articles. I've noticed that a lot in my short time here.
Language related articles belong to the category Linguistics, which tells you who the reliable sources are.
Teaching practices don't necessarily constitute human knowledge. What's taught and what's known are two different things. For practical reasons, as much as other reasons I won't go into. Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i see waat your saying, but a lot of these votes essem to be a critcism of the concept of the "six traits of writing". i agree that this is a kind of sily concept but the point of AFD is to delete articles that fail to be notable/have reliable sources or something like that, not to delete articles because we think that there subjects are silly. i am personally cinlined towards deletion at this point but if someone can find evidence that points out that this is some kind of big meme / concept in American writing education as has been stated before then an article can be reconstructed to ofocus on those points. Smith Jones (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps an article could be written about the concept of those "six traits", from a critical outside perspective, if it turned out that was a notable meme of American writing education, with academic literature covering its history, motivation and so on. But that's clearly not what was planned here. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless one can demonstrate skills as a writer, one should not attempt to instruct other people about writing. Mandsford (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add momentum to the gathering snowball, this topic is intrinsically unencyclopedic, and the current version is (by necessity) unsourced, and beyond redemption. Bongomatic 18:38, 9 February 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.