Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Routine Letters and Goodwill Messages

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) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Routine Letters and Goodwill Messages

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

Original etiquette article on how to send letters and written communications. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Pstanton (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR. — Rankiri (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTAMANUAL. Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but unfortunately it isn't what Wikipedia is for. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate that we have a new editor and that this is his or her first contribution. Welcome to Wikipedia, Comm212-9. I think that there is information here that could be included elsewhere, and Comm212-9 can probably rescue the existing (and, currently, execrable) article Business letter. For a subject as important as a business letter, that one has to be one of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia. At first, I thought it was vandalism, but business letter has apparently been in a sorry state for several years. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd suggest moving this text to a subpage of Talk:Business letter. This content, though unreferenced and somewhat essayish, is fairly obviously superior to some of the text on Business letter itself. (CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT) As such, it's a content fork; but there's enough value here for future editors to make it worth saving somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research/etiquette essay; in no way encyclopedic. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 23 March 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.