Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complementary advertising

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complementary advertising

Contested prod. It looks like an idea somebody has for revolutionizing advertising that they decided to publish at Wikipedia. (The original version said the term was "coined by me".) Whether or not it's a good idea, it's not ready for an article. The external link isn't really a source, and also claims coinage... Relevant policies and guidelines would be WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Wikipedia:No original research. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism, original research, and crystal ball gazing. Note Google hits. The first links to a blog that belongs to the original author of the article. Subsequent hits use the term in a variety of different ways (sometimes, but not consistently, as a synonym for contextual advertising). —Caesura^(t) 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NOT hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Skinmeister 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, though the article prose reminds me of the old joke about the woman who confessed to her doctor that despite being married three times she was still a virgin. The doctor, amazed, asks how this is possible, and she tells the doctor that her first husband was a gay man who came out of the closet on their wedding night, her second husband was a soldier who was killed in battle before they could consummate their marriage, and her third and current husband is in the advertising business, and all he'll do is sit at the foot of the bed and keep telling her how good it's going to be. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research.--Runcorn 21:30, 19 July 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.