Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compliment slip


 * 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   keep. Punkmorten (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Compliment slip

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NOTDIC  Chzz  ►  09:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete as dictionary definition. I see little chance of expansion here. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. I struggle to imagine a good article for this topic, but this is worse than a redlink as a basis for it. Rd232 talk 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - possible cites may be found at Google scholar. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Perhaps a merge with Thank you letter. Although, Compliment slip is more fleshed out and Wikified.  L0b0t (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Weak Keep It does have potential,  however merge now would probably be best. --MikemoralSock (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per PAMd. --MikemoralSock (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm not sure about the Emily Post style of some of the text, but the concept is distinct enough for a short article. A merge with thank you letter is not appropriate. A thank you letter expresses gratitude for a conferred benefit, whereas a compliments slip tells the recipient that "this item you have just received is free of charge". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - certainly no longer just a dicdef. They are a distinct piece of stationery - there are probably collectors of them. Plenty of sources. PamD (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  enough material for an article, at least at present. DGG (talk)
 * Keep; fairly well sourced, and I am sure there is plenty more material about- potentially a substantial, if a little odd, article. J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.