Talk:Single source publishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--195.19.48.219 11:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kyaw myat moe

I've attached an NPOV (neutral point of view) tag to this article because I think it offers little besides a personal opinion piece.

It consists essentially of a single sentence defining single source publishing, followed by two brief examples. I don't think this an adequate basis for an article.

The last sentence is particularly questionable: the statement that single source publishing "can be difficult to achieve without the use of some kind of content management system" is an unsubstantiated opinion. I can cite expert opinions that content management systems are a bad idea and that you can do single source publishing with other (less expensive) tools.

Finally, the last two External Links (to the authorit.com and xmetal.com sites) are spam and should be removed.

I'm not convinced that the term 'single source publishing' is worthy of an article outside of marketing literature. If it is, it should adhere to NPOV policy "an article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source." For good examples in the same field, see Technical_writing and Information_architecture.

Denisbradford 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree strongly. It's not a lengthy article, nor an in-depth one. However, this is a topic I've been interested in for over a year, and didn't find the name of until today. Even a short bit of write-up on this subject is a great start. Don't kill the article; if you have something better, then IMPROVE it. -- Jel.

I also disagree. This is an important topic, and it deserves to be improved, not deleted. As for being NPOV, the fixes that have already been made seem to move it in that direction. --KellyCoinGuy 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made some rather significant additions to the article. I hope nobody gets too bent out of shape about the references to FrameMaker, Quadralay, etc. It's just that I've had some fairly serious success with some of these tools in the past, and pointing people in the right direction just seems like the right thing to do in this case. KellyCoinGuy 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)