Talk:Minimalism (technical communication)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Minimalism. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merging this entry elsewhere
[edit]The merging of this page with Minimalism didn't seem to have been properly discussed and I have undone it - this subject was totally out of place there. Minimalism was a movement in art, music, literature and architecture and the entry for it cannot accommodate everything 'minimal'. Merging this article with Technical Communication seems a more sensible solution to me, but I'll leave it to someone who understands the subject. --Nofoto (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- As a subject matter expert in the field of technical communication, I must oppose such a merge. Minimalism as a theory (it's not a movement really) is notable enough to warrant its own entry and expansion beyond the current content. I am confident that independent sources with no connection to Carroll can be provided to assert this topic's importance. I just need more time as I'm currently facing this problem of inappropriate sourcing on a number of articles vital to our field. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, uh...apparently this was nominated for deletion in 2009, merged into another article, then the merge was reverted, and another merge was suggested in 2010 to which only one person responded? The article seems to have just been forgotten. I intend to change that; in fact, I would like to see this article expanded with reliable sources in order to establish the subject's notability. I would like to request that any talk about merging or deletion take place after I (or anyone else) perform a round of sourcing; at that point, I feel it would be more fair to reevaluate the article. I hope this is acceptable to those concerned. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]Would this count as a valid source? I think it could at least be used to support some of the article's existing content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)