Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Letter writing

Letter writing
I found this book while cruising around on the "Random Book" link. This book has essentially no content, and appears to have been that way for over a year and a half now. There have been a number of edits to this page from multiple users, but most of those edits are: vandalism, removing vandalism, adding and removing the stub template, categorizing, etc. I think it's a good idea, after a year and a half, to just delete small stubs like this and offer future options a fresh start. --Whiteknight (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blah. Delete. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - If there was anything substantial here, and I mean anything at all.... even suggested "titles" for people in different positions; such as a Senator, Member of Parliment, The Queen of England, etc.; I would be encouraging this to remain a stub. As it is, there is nothing here at all that isn't painfully obvious to anybody who has ever written a letter before, and Microsoft Word or Open Office in their letter templates do a better job of explaining these details than this Wikibook. I do have mixed feelings about deletion of book stubs, as I'm not convinced that unlike Wikipedia a book stub of just a single thought will ever be expanded into something more substantial.  A single sentence Wikipedia article will be expanded into a more complete article eventually.  I can't say that about a "book" that is just a single sentence or two.  The question is how far do you go to call something a stub.  --Rob Horning 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that perhaps this is an issue that is worth some serious and dedicated discussion, and not just a passing mention in an uneventful VfD. I agree with you that this issue isn't as cut-and-dry as it is on wikipedia, and that stubs that have no content are not likely to ever be expanded. Previous VfD's have shown that the community is pretty divided on the issue of stubs, although i think there is some prevaling opinion that "really bad stubs" or "hopeless stubs" or "eternal stubs" should be deleted. Precisely where those lines are drawn is open to much debate, and i'm sure several users will protest the deletion of any stub regardless of how hopeless they may be. We should bring this up on staff lounge, or maybe even start drafting some kind of stub guideline. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. There's nothing here worth reading, ergo, there shouldn't be anything here at all. Regards, Celestianpower Háblame 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete none of this is useful and times have changed. There are far less "standards" nowadays for writing letters and the differences between very formal and semi-formal are so small also.  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - nicely summed up by Celestianpower. Webaware talk 07:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)