Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing with meaning

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. Mr.Anderson yandman 07:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing with meaning

edit
Marketing with meaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed PROD. Unremarkable advertising concept covered only in specialist media. Definition. Unencyclopaedic. 9Nak (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Let's give this article a chance. I think it was created to promote the blog linked to in the external links section which I have removed, but a quick Gsearch indicates it probably has notability as a marketing concept ("marketing with meaning" +-20k hits). I've tagged the article for cleanup and more references. If it is only covered in "specialist media" that does not make it unremarkable, since it has coverage. If the current article is unencyclopedic, that is a problem that can be solved without AfD. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although other sources are available (for example this cnet article), the arguments below, principally WP:NEO, are convincing. Delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —9Nak (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree with the nominators rationale; being 'convered only in specialist media' has never been a deletion criteria, neither has 'only a definition' (especially when it is obviously much more). However, just finding something on Google does not establish notability either, because only reliable sources can establish notability. The problem with 'marketing with meaning', is that it would presumably be used often as just part of a sentence. I did a search for the term on ProQuest, that searches pretty much what is available of academic journals within business and marketing, and it gave two hits. Both were news (not academic journal hits); the one used the the term as a casual phrase (albeight in the title, but completly unrelated to the subject at hand), while the other was an interview with the owner of the blog site with the same name. It seems that most of the Google hits also are references to this blog site (which would have to establish notability independent of the subject on hand). Reading the article, there is little that makes sence; though the article is not directly untrue, it seems to be mixing parts here and there, and there are non-coherences between sections. I interpret 'marketing with meaning' as a attempt to make a buzzword. It is impossible to access the sources, since they have restricted access. It all seems very WP:OR to me. In the business word, buzzterms like these are twenty a dozen, and until they are established by reliable academic resarch, fail to be notable. Arsenikk (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both rationales above have merit. Being covered as little as it is in proquest and the internet, this term is unremarkable and possibly constitutes a neologism. The lack of reliable sources that give in-depth information about the topic itself leads it to fail the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authors Keep Thank you all for your respectful consideration of the merits of this piece. I will state my case for inclusion: First, I looked up the qualifications for "unremarkable" and this article seems to be remarkable enough. I examined the definition of remarkable for Wikipedia in the notability guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) and find that this subject and entry satisfies all requirements. Advertising Age covered the concept multiple times. It is the leading publication for marketing professionals around the world. In addition to these points and the specific coverage in Advertising Age, the Marketing With Meaning concept has been covered by Contagious Magazine (subscriber access only available), and has several inbound link and comments from leading marketing professionals. In terms of whether or not this is a concept worth coverage, I would agree with LinguistAtLarge that this is only the start of a potentially very rich discussion. The concept will be the feature of a book that I have written which will be published by McGraw-Hill in October 2009, and it will be included in an upcoming marketing textbook, Kleppner’s Advertising Procedure. On Feb 24th the Marketing With Meaning blog was named the #1 content marketing blog by the independent Junta42 group. Overall, the entire idea of a shift from traditional, interruptive advertising to that of marketing that adds value to people's lives is part of a growing trend within the multi-billion-dollar global advertising and marketing industry, which impacts the daily lives of nearly every citizen in the world. User_talk:Rdgilby
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 26 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marketing_with_meaning&oldid=1084282709"