Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It was asserted at Vfd back in 2005 that this article was "a bit of propaganda" against the use of honorifics on Wikipedia. I don't know if that's true, but it does explain how something like this would come to be. I think this fails WP:GNG and is fundamentally unencyclopedic in that it's not a subject discussed by reliable sources. The citation scheme here is rather hodgepodge, but it seems to all be primary sources explaining individual publications' practices. The article would need references beyond journalistic how-tos and style guides, and I just don't see that ever being the case. I couldn't find any such sources, though it's not a particularly easy search. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Essentially a research essay comparing the house style of this paper to that to the other. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would take issue with "not an encyclopedic topic". This is the kind of topic that traditional print encyclopedias thrive on. I think you mean "not a Wikipedic topic", which is a very different thing that depends on the blinkered vision of an encyclopedia that has taken hold here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Phil, if you can prove that, the article might be worth keeping. I'm skeptical though. Does Britannica, for example, really have an entry that essentially just samples style guides to discuss the use of such titles in professional writing? If they're referring to good reliable sources, maybe the article can be saved. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - In the event that this mess is kept, there are greenlinks aplenty in the body which need to go away or be moved to External Links. This thing is virtually unsourced as it sits... Carrite (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HOWTO, unless you can give me good reasons otherwise. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2013 (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.