Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affinity marketing


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  16:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Affinity marketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a promotion of a particular service. No sources beyond those listing the company that created the article. Holdek (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator per Mark viking's rewrite. Holdek (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This nomination does not seem to be made in good faith. For example, there are 2590 Google book results for the phrase 'affinity marketing'. It easily passed WP:GNG. WP:REFSPAM can (and should) be cleaned up, but that is not a valid reason for deleting articles. - MrX 16:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia: Speedy keep and Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Holdek (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, criteria 2: vexatious nominations. The fact that you tried to speedy delete a four year old article and obviously did not follow WP:BEFORE, as well as a review of some of your other edits suggests that there is a problem. AGF is not a suicide pact.- MrX 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a speedy deletion discussion, but rather an article for deletion discussion. Read: Wikipedia: Deletion process #Deletion discussions.  Holdek (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  17:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

*Snow delete. Safiel pretty much said it best, and frankly, I don't even see a point of transwiki-ing anything to Wikitionary. It doesn't help that much of the article is listed in the first person.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete  The article was created by a user that was fairly soon thereafter blocked for a promotional user name. The article as created was promotional for a particular company. Instead of CSD G11, which should have happened at that time, the editors instead chose simply to delete the spam references. Not a great deal of references available, not enough for this to stand alone as a encyclopedic article. Might be suitable for Wiktionary or perhaps a blurb in another marketing related article. Safiel (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest having a look at WP:BEFORE and then having a look at the 605 scholarly sources, the 2,640 book sources and the 530 magazine articles.- MrX 21:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I've rewritten the article (still a stub) based on one secondary and two tertiary sources. This is a notable concept that has been around for decades in the marketing field. As MrX points out, there are hundreds of GBook and GScholar hits, with many secondary and tertiary sources in the first few pages of hits demonstrating notability of the concept per WP:GNG. A notable topic and a rewritten article based on RS suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the article is under construction; it would be nice if MrX would insert a few of those many sources into the article.  Mini  apolis  23:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mark viking. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, article has been improved and notability has been demonstrated. If somebody had cared to do this in the first place, we would not be here. Too often, crap is slapped on Wikipedia with no effort made to indicate notability and we are forced to go through this charade to force people to do what should have already been done. Safiel (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mark's improvements.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:17, 19 January 2014 (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.