Talk:Dear John letter

External link for discussion and third opinion

I have moved this link to the talk page: officespam.chattablogs.com/archives/044314.html. The link to a non-notable blog by an anonymous author is one I have removed before, but since it was recently added again, I have moved it to the talk page for discussion as a reliable source before making a request for a third opinion. Any comments? Flowanda 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda I think the idea is that the link was given as a humor example of a Dear John letter. The point in posting the link is that it is an example of a Dear John letter, which is not given anywhere in this wiki entry. As to whether the site is non-notable I am not sure, but the link is on topic and does provide insight into a Dear John Letter.

Further I agree that there is a need for a Dear John entry here at wiki, but this category supplies little in the form of useful or referenced information. If we are going to talk about something let’s talk about the first sentence of the category. I think in most people’s minds the Dear John letter is gender neutral, and I believe that is why the Dear Jane letter entry just redirects to the Dear John entry. As for the link, I think it is useful as an example of a Dear John Letter. Davidgid 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added references and quotes to the article with all external links. I believe the quote from Wendy Russ site is the most rigid in terms of citations from the dictionary, and there is nothing to add really. Plus I am adding a link a to page with a DIY form for "Dear John Letter". --Whitely3000 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]