Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenue automation

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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Neologism with no claim to notability, possibly promotional intent (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Valid references are cited. Article supports much more than a trivial mention as per WP:GNG. JamesVanc (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — JamesVanc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - the references do not appear to be reliable sources. Surely there could be better citations if it were notable. The "becoming" mention in the lead is akin to the up and coming. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (if some changes are made) – I was asked by someone who wants to delete this article to review its validity. I am in the marketing automation space and can confirm that revenue automation is very much talked about in the space. My only suggestion is the article should have more substance. I suggest outlining the steps to get a better understanding of the actual methodology. I also agree with Bearian’s “becoming” comment. The article, if updated and elaborated upon, is useful particularly to those people researching methodologies related to marketing automation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieredd (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Jamieredd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Then you'll be able to cite those sources that you say discuss this subject in depth. Everything else that you've said has no bearing upon deletion policy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it is gibberish. After reading this article, I have no idea what revenue automation means. It is apparently some sort of marketing jargon and/or promotional language. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that the two keep commenters above are new accounts, created for purposes of this article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Personal attacks RE: WP:PA are not acceptable. Comments should be made on the article. One's ability to comprehend an article is a moot point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My request for sources a few days ago was met with nothing, and the common diversionary smokescreen about nonexistent personal attacks that is always a bad sign was employed, so I went looking. It turns out that this article is yet another advertisement in disguise. My searches for sources didn't turn up anything that can be relied upon documenting a concept by this name. Reading the first source cited in the article, I find that it's actually about marketing automation. But — Aha! — it mentions a company whose name is Revenue Automation. And that company's director of marketing is the author of the other source cited in the article. So we have one purported source that (when one actually reads it) isn't about the subject, and another source that isn't independent of the subject, and a subject that's a company name disguised as a supposedly novel idea. This is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising billboard. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: After reading the above, I immediately wanted to change my initial position regarding the article. I then went to confirm if the above was true but found the first source references Revenue Automation as a methodology in paragraph three, and after a quick search online I found that the company Revenue Automation launched a methodology called Revenue Automation http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9290834.htm (Title: Revenue Automation Defined to Enhance Marketing Automation Initiatives). Therefore the first source is about Revenue Automation and the fact a company launched a methodology mirroring its own name is not relevant. Where is the author of this article? Out of curiosity, can they contribute to this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The author of this article is User:Whitekayak (contributions). The history of this contributor looks very suspicious and leads me to wonder if this may be a hijacked account. The author originally contributed for only about three weeks in 2008 and then stopped contributing. During that time he/she contributed mostly articles about Canada, Ottawa, and Quebec. Suddenly, in May 2012, the user reappeared and began contributing articles exclusively concerned with marketing and advertising, a definite break in editing style. Not impossible, but seems unlikely. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Does the author automatically get notified when any of us make comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.24.239 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the author does not get notification of comments. The nominator should notify the author when the article is nominated for AFD, which was done. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The first source is about marketing automation. It says so, 15 times in a mere 5 paragraphs. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No – wrong again. The first source is about Revenue Automation and B2C Marketing Automation. You can find it in the title of the article itself: “Revenue Automation and B2C Marketing Automation: the Death of Email Marketing.” A title is a great way to find out what an article is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Company name and marketing automation. Yes, even the title tells us that the source is about marketing automation, although I contend that the great way to find out what sources about is to read them. 15 times, 5 paragraphs. Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reading it is a great idea. The article is talking about marketing automation (mentioned many times) and a methodology called Revenue Automation: "We’re following an emerging marketing methodology called Revenue Automation forged by a B2C marketing automation agency in Canada." (Third paragraph: http://blog.demandmetric.com/2012/06/26/revenue-automation-and-b2c-marketing-automation-the-death-of-email-marketing/). Reading is so much fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 July 2012 (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.