Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversationality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 00:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversationality

Conversationality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

"The term was coined in March 2005". Doesn't seem widely used, about 1230 ghits. MER-C 09:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete In relation to marketing, this term fails WP:NEO. Bláthnaid 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete -- when you look at unique hits, it gets even worse: just 210. It appears to be an effort to promote the "STICK and MOVE" advertising agency; note this edit summary: ("Created a page for proprietary branding concept of Conversationality") --A. B. (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to strong delete -- the only effort here is in the way of enriching the conversation about marketing as it evolves in today's landscape and introducing a novel term that is relevant but not everyone may be familiar with. This benefits all those working in and passionate about the marketing industry, regardless of the term's agency origin. If this was to be deleted, then so should "lovemark" -- we're either opening up the discussion on marketing to everyone, or we're not, there's no midpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpopova (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If conversationality gets to be as widely used as "lovemark", you'll have the kind of media coverage we need to justify an article for the concept. Google News search for "lovemark": 3 news items; Google News Archive: 224 news items. --A. B. (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is Spam disguised as a non-notable neogolism. --Gavin Collins 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as link farming with a thin layer of marketing speak / neologism dicdef. -Harmil 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Harmil. Greswik 20:47, 15 November 2007 (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.