Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand shaping

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 Keep. Nom has withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demand shaping

Demand shaping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Seems to be a copyvio of a commercially published market research paper called "What is Demand Sensing" published by AMR, but speedy delete was declined. I don't have access to the original paper but here are the reasons for suspecting this article:

1. One paragraph, since deleted [1], is a clear copyvio - see here
2. There's an internal reference to another AMR research paper ("Seagate a Leader in the Use of Downstream Data")
3. Seems to be original research
4. Unreferenced
5. Written by SPA, without any editing
6. Style is identical to a publicly available research paper from the same AMR author - see here

Nomination withdrawn - the new stub is well referenced. andy (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Original research couched in evasive gush: The orchestration of demand based on channel sensing and response to a real-time demand signal across a network of employees, customers, and suppliers. If someone who typed that stuff wanted to shake my hand, I'd insist they wash their hands first. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are lots of sources for this. I just stubbed the article based upon one of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That stub looks good to me. I'm inclined to withdraw my nomination - anyone got any opinions? andy (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'd still want some indication that this is a notable neologism. Many of those hits on Google Scholar seem to be the result of the semi-random convergence of the two words of the search stream, usually with intervening punctuation. It isn't clear to me that an article on the topic is needed, or wouldn't be redundant to more mainstream articles about things like price or advertising. I'm just very leery of ga-ga marketing terms, and the way this one was introduced here makes it look like another. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The term definitely has a vogue but is it just marketing babble? andy (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a systemic bias against business and marketing here. This is unhelpful because these are important topics. Pricing and advertising are just two ways of shaping demand. Other methods include bundling, market segmentation and tie-ins. The original article emphasised the role of demand sensing. It seems obvious to me that there's lots to be said about these matters and it's not just babble. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that this "systemic bias" exists, it flows out of the premises of the project, that we don't promote new ideas, and most importantly, that we don't allow the popularity of the site and its prominence on search engines to be hijacked for commercial purposes, search engine manipulation, or lending credibility or publicity to newly minted buzzwords and acronyms.

The fact that many people who insert this sort of article are unable to write clearly, concretely, or concisely, and have a promotional conflict of interest that makes their prose — unwittingly or calculatedly — vague, evasive, and tending to belabor the obvious in polysyllabic abstract nouns, seems to me to be a flaw of the breed. The impression that kind of prose gives me is that the writer is at pains to conceal the obviousness and lack of real innovation in their method; and to describe them vaguely, to make them seem univerally applicable, and evasively, because plain language would make their obviousness and lack of real innovation plain to see. If this is bias, so be it. But generally, if I find the prose of an article clear, concise, and concrete, and free from management paperback buzzwords, my inclusionist tendencies can take over. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor writing is explicitly acceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. At the moment, this discussion seems to be wandering far afield of the merits of this article itself, which last time I looked remained a brief but lucid stub. I distinguish between merely bad writing, and deliberately bad writing, especially when the latter seems calculated to conceal the fact that "there's no 'there' there", to be all sizzle and no steak. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. WP:DICT. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DICT is not applicable - please read it to see the difference between a stub and a dictionary definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I found (and added a reference) from the official MIT website. Sculptors of Demand (MIT Center for Transportation and Demand), making the case for notability quite strong. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (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.