Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embedded marketing

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 Close. I'm being WP:BOLD and closing this discussion. The article, in its current state, is a different article than nominated-for-deletion article. In addition, the consensus seems to be for a Redirect. Moreover, the original nominator has withdrawn his/her deletion proposal. Therefore, the discussion for redirect or keep as a seperate article is more appropiate for the Embedded marketing and product placement talk pages. And I have tagged both articles with a merger proposals and initiated a discussion at Talk:Product placement#Merger proposal. If after a discusison at the talk pages, there's no basis for having two seperate articles, Embedded marketing will be redirected to Product placement.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Embedded marketing

Embedded_marketing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Delete: article appears to be about a concept promoted by the author's company. No sources provided apart from this company's website. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - covert spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has been stubbed since the nomination, and the nonsense has been removed. Not sure this is the best term for the subject, but am willing to see if further edits bring anything worthwhile to it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this meets Speedy criteria since it doesn't have contact info for an advertiser; there's a plausible argument it could be reshaped into a legit article. But I don't think it'd be a winning argument. Not notable, no reliable sources, and so on. Townlake (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very notable concept [1]. Problems with the article will be fixed promptly. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment If the article can be reshaped in the near term to include sources that meet RS criteria, as well as text edits that take this out of hype sheet territory, I'll cheerfully reconsider my opinion. Townlake (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A new type of marketing? Redirect I am changing my vote, as per the inclusion of excellent reference sources. However, this is not a new type of marketing; it is just a new name for product placement, and it should be redirected there. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Which one of the speedy criteria do you propose this fits under?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense is a criterion for speedy deletion. It includes "(c)ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." The previous version of this article contained texts like:

    Promising and delivering end to end services, embedded marketing is setting new standards for customer delivery and satisfaction. In the ever changing Internet Marketing scenario, embedded marketing may prove to be a stable factor. The current set of complete solutions, which genuinely offer solutions, which work right from creation and implementation of a plan, till the plan shows results, the change in the standard of solutions provided was inevitable.

    Like Truman Capote said, "that's not writing - that's typing", and as far as I am concerned it counts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At the time s/he voted, the aforemtioned quotes were not in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. I thought that was a speedy delete criteria but I guess not. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

*Delete - covert spam. If it existed as a term outside the original spammer's website, I'd say make it into a redir to product placement. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Redirect - changed my mind, since there is evidence of the use of this euphemism outside the original spammer's website, I support a redirect to product placement. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Per comments above.Renee (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Re-direct it's a valid search term and notable, as Brewcrewer established, however I don't think it's substantive enough to warrant a standalone article. Product placement appears to be a good target. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Product placement as others have said, and update that article to mention the 'embedded marketing' term. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Product placement as others have said, and update that article to mention the 'embedded marketing' term. -RatSkrew (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, while I would like to jump onto this re-direct spree, I did perform a search through ProQuest on x hundred scientific journals within business, marketing and psychology without finding the term "embedded marketing". I don't seem to have access to full-length of the provided references, but what I have manged to read seems to me to be that "embedded marketing" is a synonym for product placement. And if it is just a buzzterm for product placement, then take the liberty of redirecting. Just don't keep this article; it says nothing. Arsenikk (talk) 01:46, 29 May 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.