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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Flagged as without citations since December 2007, this is an essay and collection of original research, presented as an enhanced dictionary definition. It may be interesting and even useful, but it is not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that your last sentence is better rephrased: "It may be a badly written article with some verifiable content, but it is notable."

  "Why is it notable?", you ask. Because Robert W. Bly, author of ISBN 9780028642109, has thought mailing lists so notable that he has devoted the the entirety of chapter #4 of that book to them. (He's also devoted pages 26–28 of ISBN 9780844232430 to them.) Because James Dening, author of Marketing Industrial Goods (Business Publications, 1968) has thought the sub-topic of the updating of mailing lists so notable that he has devoted chapter 11 of that book to it. Because Ed Burnett thinks that mailing lists are so notable that he has authored The Complete Direct Mail List Handbook (ISBN 9780131592780). Because Rose Harmer thinks that they are so notable that she has authored Mailing List Strategies (ISBN 9780070266759). Because Richard S. Hodgson thinks that they are so notable that he has authored The Dartnell direct mail and mail order handbook (Dartnell Corporation, 1974), which has chapters like chapter 19: "Standards for Computerized Mailing Lists".

  The PNC is thus satisfied. ☺

  Go and have a look at some of those sources, then come back and read the article again. You'll see it to be shallow and incomplete. But you won't see it as documenting the heretofore undocumented. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article needs work, no doubt, but that is not a reason for deletion. 'Mailing lists' are notable as a major part of modern commercial enterprise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the concept of mailing lists is very notable. If the article is badly written, then it's not the subject's fault. This should be rewritten, not deleted. And really, what would Wikipedia look like without an article about mailing lists? JIP | Talk 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep improvable. DGG (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Uncle G's good points. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 23 April 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.