Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sith Sense

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 redirect to Burger_King#Advertising. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:56Z

[edit] Sith Sense

Sith Sense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete: Wikipedia must not be a pawn in a non-notable alledged "viral" marketing campaign, otherwise every viral marketeer would simply create a "viral marketing campaign" article. No sources, no indication of notability. This should be speedily deleted as spam. Hu 07:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. Charlie 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Burger_King#Advertising, where BK's viral marketing is mentioned. There's certainly plenty of sources to verify this ("Sith sense" gets 32,700 ghits), and it was plenty popular and a notable advertising campaign, but there's not enough content for a separate article. Sithsense.com is no longer active, this isn't part of current spam or viral campaign. Tubezone 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I copied and rephrased the article text, and added to Burger_King#Current_advertising. Tubezone 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment that was a bad idea as it ISN'T current. i kan reed 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's where the other references to the Star Wars tie-in and viral marketing are, if someone wishes to, they can edit the article... I think "current" was intended to mean "in the last few years". Tubezone 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hu 11:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Could someone indicate a policy this is breaking? Please? This isn't advertising, this is an article about advertising, it doesn't appear to violate WP:WEB. hey look washington post documentation. Forgive my sarcasm there, but no wikipedia policy has been cited here. Speedy deletion has already been xnayed by an admin because it simply does not fit CSD. Near as I can tell, it doesn't fail the criteria for deletion either. To those objecting to it being "supporting Burger King's viral campaign", the site isn't even up anymore, no is the product it was supporting sold anymore. What am I missing? i kan reed 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw it speedy delete per csd-author. I'd rather not waste my time with one little page I'm not an expert on. I don't have time to defend this article. i kan reed 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - my WTF article of the day! SkierRMH 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to BK advertizing as previously suggested. --64.230.127.234 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Nick Y. 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree this doesn't seem very important. Certainly this could be mentioned in an article directly about Burger King, but it doesn't merit its own article. Davidpdx 08:51, 26 December 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.