Talk:Communication skill

This page was proposed for deletion by User:Fæ (talk · contribs) on 7 March 2011 with the comment:
This is a user essay and how-to guide rather than an encyclopaedic article and fails the WP:NOTGUIDE policy.
It was contested by Cnilep (talk · contribs) on 2011-03-14 with the comment:
Roll back to non-copyvio version. See talk page.

Untitled

what is communication skill.why it is essential.what are the different ways.how we can improve.

Could OwenX explain why this version was reverted? Issues around communication skill are worth discussing. Deleting it down to some insipid comment about autism leaves it just a short stub which is probably then going to get deleted. My intention is to put the content back in - but would like to get feedback from the broader community first. _____________

"I have been thinking about OwenX's deletion of the article. Wikipedia has got articles on 'How to swim', "How to light fires', 'How to keep an idiot busy for hours' - but apparently an article on how to communicate doesn't have enough backing research? And gets reverted? There are opinions on diets, and the existence of matter - but opinions on communication aren't allowed? Nah, it is time to revert to the original full article. Of course, specific feedback rather than just complete deletions are welcome." ThirteenthGreg 00:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the current content is more suitable for wikibooks than wikipedia. The examples you point to (How to swim and How to light a fire) are also more suitable for wikibooks. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual:

8. Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.

Pburka 16:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any citations or references for your work, or is this original research? Without such references, this is an unverifiable essay. I can live with some degree of instructions or advice when they are part of a well-referenced, cohesive article. Owen× ☎ 16:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric?

Come to think of it, isn't this article describing rhetoric? Perhaps it should just be a redirect. Pburka 15:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current contents of this page are inappropriate, as discussed above. Unless someone objects, I intend to redirect this page to rhetoric. Rhetoric covers the whole field of persuasive use of language so seems to be an appropriate redirect for this article. Pburka 00:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

On 7 March 2011 User:Fæ placed a {{Proposed deletion}} template on this article, noting that it was an essay. In fact that essay appears to have been copied from ezinearticles.com ("The Importance of Communication Skills" by Carl Formby 2007), probably in violation of copyright. I have reverted the page to an earlier version, before the copyrighted material was added. Since this version is not an essay, I have not re-added the PROD tag. If users still feel that the page should be deleted, it may be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]