Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chartered Institute of 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 keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments that the page be deleted. Concerns about the quality of the article appear to have been addressed by editing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Chartered Institute of Marketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertisement The Banner talk 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I was helping user:EdWalker58 clean up and improve the article as a learning opportunity. It should be deleted as-is, but I feel there are good odds he will make a decent article within a reasonable time-period. CorporateM (Talk) 01:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are members of this organisation really the best people to be writing the article considering WP:COI nonsense  ferret  19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is currently defined based on the motives of the editor. I was the one that suggested he improve it (seeing its current state) and his motive is only to learn Wikipedia's rules. I wouldn't accuse anyone of having a COI for membership, unless they were in a leadership role at the association. Being a member is basically just like being a customer. CorporateM (Talk) 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Chartered professional organizations are of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but then they should create a proper article, not an advertisement. The Banner talk 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree normally. Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising and a page this awful is not an improvement to Wikipedia, even if the subject is notable. Articles like this diminish Wikipedia's credibility with readers and cleaning it up would only encourage more spam for volunteers to clean up repeatedly. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the comments above, CorporateM has done an excellent job of cleaning up the prose. It is no longer highly promotional in character and is more encyclopedic in tone. The first four references in the article are secondary and in depth and refs 2-4 look independent to me; the first I am not sure about independence. The fifth reference is primary, but useful for verifying the conditions for the certificate. The multiple independent reliable sources along with the notability conferred by Chartered professional organization status show the topic is notable. With a notable topic and the problematic prose replaced by neutral content, there is no longer any reason to delete this article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll keep it on my watchlist, but for now I request speedy close as keep, as nominator. The Banner talk 10:48, 25 February 2013 (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.