Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-mail letter (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Hybrid mail. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail letter

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

This article is still laden with unnotable and useless factoids about a service that may only exist (if at all) on the very obscure fringes of the Internet. I note little incoming links and no major improvements which it needs regardless of whether it is obscure or not. Furthermore, it looks like the article was original research by the original editor, who was grasping at basic terms since User:Nehtefa invented the terminology specifically for this article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of original research: Please see [1], which is the original author User:Nehtefa discussing his need to invent or re-use terminology for his pet article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks more like english isn't their first language. Hohum (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed why I felt the original author was editing that talk page. He wanted to say "message transfer agent" and apply it to his made-up term of E-mail letter. User:Nehtefa had discovered that a message transfer agent is a real term for the real thing (that is, SMTP e-mail) and now he was stuck... How could he say "message transfer agent" without parenthetically saying that he was trying to coin that term for a person, not a computer program? So in short, he wrote that "Huston we have a problem" thing because he discovered the conflicting terminology.

All of that is indicative of deep-seeded original researching. He was making it up as he wrote it, just to stick it into the Wikipedia. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's what you think his motivation were. Nice eggcorn in your second to last sentence though! Seems he isn't the only one who can confuse terms. Hohum (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. (Merge to Hybrid mail. 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)) Given that there is/was more than one provider that offered this kind of email-to-snail-mail service (Swiss post, L-mail, etc.), and that the references are WP:RS, I see no reason to delete this. AfD is not cleanup for minor issues (a few unsourced statements, which may or may not be WP:OR), and this site isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica: "no Internet relevance" is not a reason to delete (here). I've also added the previous AfD to the box above; it was listed on the article's talk page. Pcap ping 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources cited in the article use the term "e-mail letter". Useful facts can be merged to Hybrid mail, which already covers internet-based electronic-document-to-physical-letter systems. — Miym (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that Hybrid mail is currently unsourced, it appears that the terminolgy is the proper one there, so I agree that the examples in this article should be merged there. We don't normally delete it after the merge, it needs to become a redirect; see WP:MAD. Pcap ping 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hybrid mail, for which e-mail letters are one variety. The sources for this article can be applied there. Pcap is correct that leaving the redirect would be the typical practice, and I don't see any reason we should do that in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (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.