Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone Application Development

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone Application Development

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

This is another great example of needing a CSD for WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:ESSAY. All original research here, written in second person and instructional tone. This is not a valid encyclopedic article. — Timneu22 · talk 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be careful when being so quick to nominate a article for deletion, especially an article with a template such as the one present. I agree that it has some flaws but I think that it could be reworked. Perhaps userfication is a good option here? I think it could potentially be useful to have an article about what the iPhone application development process is, as long as that article isn't a "how-to". This would require a substantial bit of reworking, but would certainly be possible. So my short answer is userfy, but with instructions. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 14:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this nomination was made far too quickly after the creation of the article, but it certainly seems that this article is going to be a WP:HOWTO. It's unlikely that an encyclopedic article about this topic could ever exist. SnottyWong ^comment 14:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have argued at CSD that there should be "criteria for speedy userfication." In any case, this article requires a full rewrite to become encyclopedic, so I don't think the nomination was too quick. Advertising pages that require full rewrites are deleted immediately. — Timneu22 · talk 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Gosox5555 whilst the article is a how-to currently, the subject itself may well be of note and has potential for a decent article. --neon white talk 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great feedback and I understand the criticism. Let me work on cleaning it up. TechLeadJosh (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have gone in and made revisions to bring the article more in line of my real purpose which is to speak about what the iPhone Application Development is and NOT to tell people actually how to develop an application. Right now I believe I have a good structure in place which I wish to share with my colleagues (and of course the general public) to flush out the meat some more. Thank you again! TechLeadJosh (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's not even close. As long as you have a section titled "buy vs. build", and with text like "For step by step instruction please visit Apple's documentation", then you have a how-to article. See WP:NOT#HOWTO; the article is still easily in violation. Also I ask, is there actually anything to present in this article that iPhone SDK hasn't already covered? — Timneu22 · talk 14:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see Wikibooks (free textbook wiki, similar to Wikipedia) or Wikiversity (free learning materials). —mono 04:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as the article is (as of this edit) is still, in essence, a how-to guide and would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. But even if it was rewritten, to be honest, I don't think there's any information in this article that couldn't be found in iPhone SDK. elektrik SHOOS 07:06, 25 July 2010 (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.