Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative strategies in advertising


 * 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. clear consensus for deletion after the relisting  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Creative strategies in advertising

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research magnet for the encyclopedic topic advertising. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relevant information commonly available in introductory advertising books but not broadly available online. There is more original research fitting in this category warranting an expansion. The merging of this content with the advertising topic would make it unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.89.31 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment this AfD was not transcluded, I have done it manually on the list for today (21 May). --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. kelapstick(bainuu) 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect - a combination of original research and how-to guide. I fear it simply isn't an encyclopaedic topic in its current form or with its current title. As a concept, it's not clear how it would be considered notable. A particular theory encompassing these ideas might be if it has received significant coverage, but this is a struggle. Stalwart 111  13:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this article based on the book Creative Strategies in Advertising by Drewniany and Jewler? If so, it might be possible to convert it into an article on the book, by adding reviews. This classification is found in a small number of other books, e.g. but I'm not sure it's notable. The references section is implausible: what does the second reference have to do with advertising? To continue the criticism, the article represents a POV about what is good and bad advertising, and confuses advertising and the wider sphere of marketing, product development, brand development, etc - but these are not necessarily reasons for deletion (I don't think it's WP:OR because it's copied from somewhere else). If someone can demonstrate that the classification itself is widely used, or discussed in a well-known book, then it might be kept. But even then, it would be necessary to have third-party sources that assess the strength and weakness of this theory of advertising. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware of that book - interesting. Obviously not OR here if it has been published elsewhere. I suppose the article could be re-focussed on the book itself, as you say, or the idea, which might get us closer to WP:N. But I'm not sure. Stalwart 111  22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete, slight merge Having read through the content, this entire article would be a good on-topic paragraph in the main advertising article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as an opinion essay about an unencyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 29 May 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.