Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand architect


 * 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, fails WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Brand architect

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A term coined by Richard Seireeni and written up here by user:Seireeni. Esssentially spam for Richard's company. (He has also created Elaine Kim about his wife.) &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Brand architect may actually be a notable term (per hits in reliable sources; though I'm not sure if there's a definition in any of those). It appears to be a job title perhaps. Regardless, article as it is written is unacceptable, and is surely original research of Mr. Seireeni's. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to "rewrite", I've added additional outside references for use of the professional discipline, Brand Architect. Seireeni (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni


 * Keep/merge My initial search for sources indicates some currency for this term. The rest is matter of content-editing.  If there isn't much too say then, at worst, we would merge with an article like Brand image. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. Regardless of whether this is a notable neologism or not, when it is defined in gushing but unacceptably vague terms, as an experienced in-house leader or outside consultant who blends strategic, behavioral and creative skills and who is experienced in all communication medias — from print to broadcast, from the internet to live venues, the article needs to be so thoroughly rewritten that deleting the current text would do no harm. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note addition of background information leading to the emergence of this new discipline. On the suggestion of merging with 'Brand Image', this would not be a good idea. Brand image is a phrase that has fallen into disuse among brand development professionals. Brand image is really another word for 'brand identity' with a slightly broader meaning. Nevertheless, the term focuses too much on the creative side – the 'image' side – and does not balance the equation with strategy. 'Brand Positioning' is now the more popular term as it implies a strategic underpinning to brand expression. Left brain AND right brain. 216.244.32.116 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Richard Seireeni
 * I wish I can !vote Keep, but there's just too much original research in the article. It needs a drastic overhaul.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would ask you consider the trade-off here. Either we can post a relatively new idea written by the concept's champion and open the discussion of this idea, which is gaining worldwide currency, to public discussion and additions - or we can delete it, in which case an important topic in the world of branding goes begging. It would seem that the goal is to promote the exchange of ideas and discussion. I admit that I cooked up this notion some 15 years ago, but the term has gradually come into common use. Walk into any brand, advertising or marketing firm, and they know the rough meaning of 'Brand Architect'. What they may not know is the history of its origin, which I think I know better than anyone else. There is also the confusion between Brand Architect and Brand Architecture, which is roughly the difference between an Architect and Architecture. I.e., the difference between a person and a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seireeni (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that expounding and discussing this concept is a good thing, but it flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. This encyclopedia's goal is to gather and publish well established and sourced concepts, not to be on the forefront of new concepts. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge / redirect to Brand management, which already contains a paragraph about Brand Architecture. There's worthwhile and accurate content here, but it just seems to me the topic is better described within the broader context that Brand management provides.  I don't know if it's "official policy", but wikipedia seems to redirect most job-description-type articles into other corresponding articles.  For instance industrial designer redirects to industrial design.  And this seems to work well.  --Lockley (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hum. That's not a bad idea. If it were placed with a separate heading before or after Brand Archtecture, it could help define the difference. So, who does the merging? Me or someone on the Wikipedia administration team? (Assuming this meets with the group's approval.) Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia does have an entry for Brand Architecture on its own. A corresponding one for Brand Architect in addition to an expanded entry on Brand Management may also be considered.216.175.70.170 (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni
 * You can do the merging yourself, but please bear in mind to only merge what is not original research. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please see addition to Brand Management entry. Seireeni (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni
 * I've moved it to Talk:Brand_management as it was highly promotional and poorly sourced. It has all the problems mentioned here in this AfD.  Regardless of where the information is added, it must be verifiable, properly sourced, and balanced so not to appear purely promotional. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. I have many books on the subject and will add references.

216.175.70.170 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research written to promote the editor's business venture. The article would need to be rewritten from scratch with completely new sources and material to meet even basic policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 30 June 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.