Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advercasting

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advercasting

Vanity page. I suspect that "e-marketing guru" Mr. Rubel is attempting to "e-market" his own e-marketing jargon [1]. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Steve responds: Sure, I can see why you think that. Why don't we do this. Let's remove the link to my post and reference to my name and build out this definition if it even deserves to be at all. Let the people decide. - Steve Rubel

• Delete as dicdef, neologism, vanity, crystal-balling. Sheesh! Eddie.willers 20:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thousands of Google links, but they all seem to point to his blog, i.e. he is gaming Google. And on the page above [2] he mentions the Wikipedia article, pretends that it was posted by a third party, and invites people to "build out" the definition in much the same language as above. Why do these people always use deceit as a first resort? Is it part of their training? If he had waited a bit, let things grow, he might have had a case. Looking at the contribution histories it would appear that, using the IP address 24.131.194.221, he posted a request for an article on this term at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics, and then created the article himself thirteen minutes later, which was clumsy. Should have waited a week or so and used a different IP address. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 21:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ashley Pomeroy. (What's a "trailor", anyway? This e-podJarGon is getting beyond me.) — Haeleth Talk 23:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ugly business. I think the people have decided. --Aquillion 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, I can testify that Steve did not post this article. I did. I posted it because it needs to be defined. You may not like advertising, but advercasting will in fact become popular, if not in 2006 then definitely by 2007. This is not an ordinary advertising method. Advercasting has many advantages over traditional advertings, specifically the maven (see The Tipping Point) audience, thus it needs to be defined. Furthermore, there are a number of other links out there that discuss the term, such as lexblog.com and droxy.com. As mentioned above, I did in fact request the article then add it a few minutes later because I've never added a new article here before. It was not clear to me at first that I could simply create the article on my own. Like Steve said, if you think he created it to promote his site, then just remove the link and the reference to him.
  • Comment. The above statement was posted from the same IP as the IP original author of the article. No matter what defense they offer, the fact remains that this is a nelogism that has no place in Wikipedia. Eddie.willers 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Of course it was the same IP. I *said* I was the author to show you that Steve Rubel did not write it as a means of self-promotion. You act like I was trying to hide something. Sheesh...
      • Comment As Response. I would politely suggest that you read some of the foregoing comments. The issue with this article is not 'self-promotion' (as you appear to believe) but the fact that the descriptive term is a neologism and runs against Wiki policy. Additionally, and with the greatest respect, sir, you may *say* whatever you please. Nevertheless, you are *saying* it from an anonymous IP account rather than taking the trouble to register as a user. IMHO, and probably within that of many Wiki editors, this has the effect of reducing the value of what you have to say. Eddie.willers 04:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as part of the "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, Portmanteaux don't have 52,000 entries in Google.

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.