Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter of thanks


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Letter of thanks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TNT; no content is salvageable and the topic should probably be a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (wikt:thank you card). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that has a separate (older) history, and redirects to Letter (message). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete . While some good prose could undoubtedly be written about the history of thank-you notes, none of the prose from this version would survive, and thus I advise starting over. Article has been rewritten. (Came here via a link in the general Wikipedia IRC channel.) Enterprisey (talk!) 04:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. Brad  v  04:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki, Enterprisey, and I discussed this on IRC, if that matters. Brad  v  04:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and this article comes across as an article on how to write thank you letters. Vorbee (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline.  The claim that none of this content would be wanted in our final article seems quite false.  For example, the article cites a NYT article The Found Art of Thank-You Notes.  Why wouldn't we want to keep this reference and build upon it per our actual policy of WP:PRESERVE?  The nomination doesn't explain.  Nor does it discuss the numerous books devoted to this topic, such as Writing Thank-You Notes: Finding the Perfect Words.  Here's the perfect word for this:  "before". Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The author(s) didn't even bother to include the article name or a link. Finding out what the ref is is about as much work as finding it from Google. Nothing here really seems worth keeping. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The citation was adequate to establish the reference. Fleshing it out is more easily done from the existing text than by starting from nothing.  I have attended to this detail to demonstrate.  Such formatting is routine work for gnomes but AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Soft delete. Seems like WP:OR all the way through. No sources that indicate passing WP:GNG neither. Recommend WP:SOFTDELETE for WP:PRESERVE to Letter (message).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Above we have links to substantial and respectable sources and it is easy to find more specialised sources such as The Effects of Contingent Thank-You Notes.... WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I cut out everything that read like a how-to manual, and I replaced the part where it talked about psychological studies. Basically, "starting over" didn't take very long. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did a quick Google search for "history of thank-you letters", and it does look like there is enough to pass WP:GNG after eliminating all the how-to sites and focusing just on reliable sources about historical significance: . I believe that treating the subject in terms of historical significance does make for an encyclopedic subject. (Thank-you letter strikes me as a better pagename than Letter of thanks.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – The article has been entirely rewritten after it was nominated for deletion (WP:HEY), and the topic meets WP:GNG. North America1000 23:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An admin can probably snow-keep close this now; they may want to consider the page name and history issues when they do so. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. When nominated, this was a perfect WP:TNT candidate: worthless content about a notable topic.  Since the topic itself is good, and since it's been given a solid rewrite, deleting now would be absurd.  Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been updated since the start of the afd. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2018 (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.