Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause marketing

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. If the author wants this to be userfied, I'd be willing to undelete this article and copy it into her userspace. Please ask if you want me to do this. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause marketing

Not 100% sure, but this looks like "paste in and edit so it's less an advertisement". The author appears to be the editor of the book (at any rate the same name as listed on the cover of the book). This reads like a big marketing spiel and not an encyclopedia article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JByrd (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. Devotchka 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (I had prodded this previously, for what it's worth). --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some vanity, some OR, some advertisement. Basically, a little of this, a little of that, a lot of deletion. -- Kicking222 04:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the author and I took parts from my book about cause marketing and put it in wikipedia - I spent over 18 months researching and writing the book. If it looks like a cut and paste - what's wrong with that if the information is legitimate? Jocelyne Daw (User:Jocelyne Daw)

• Comment "Cause marketing" appears to be a really big thing (200,000 Google hits). It sounds very worthy of an article, but this--in its current form--is not at all encyclopedic. I request that User:Jocelyne Daw be given a chance to rewrite this (as has expertise in this field), as long as it conforms to the pillars, espcially WP:NPOV & WP:V, and meets WP:STYLE. Are you willing to do so, Jocelyne? (This article can't and shouldn't be a marketing vehicle for any of your particular works, but you should feel free to cite your works, among others, in an encyclopedic rewrite.) If User:Jocelyne Daw agrees, can we move this article to her namespace while she works on it? -- Scientizzle 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I second Scientizzle's suggestions and have added external links & other book titles as a bibliography. Vizjim 09:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - good suggestion scientizzle. THE KING 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Scientizzle's suggest. That sounds like a fine way to resolve this. JByrd 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per Scientizzle above. If someone has expertise in a field, then we should encourage their contributions. (Just as long as they're verifiable, not original research, and their references are cited.) --Elkman 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advetisment. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not having encyclopedic content. If the author would rewrite to encyclopedic standards (which I've seen no sign of, so far), Week Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have contacted the author, but have not yet received a response. If User:Jocelyne Daw doesn't respond here prior to the closing of this AfD, I support deletion. She can create an encyclopedic article in the future... -- Scientizzle 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy - if it's not copyvio, it's vanity. B.Wind 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody wants to remove all that POV advertising and then put a valid stub explaining the method of marketing it should be deleted. I think it is a valid subject, but the article would be better edited from scratch. HighInBC 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.