Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark 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 Draftify. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Dark marketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research with misused and poor references designed to publicise the view of a particular start-up company, BrandTotal, which claims to have trademarked "Dark Marketing" and uses it to push their marketing intelligence platform. It was quite wrongly accepted at AfC, especially since it contained this blatant advertising for BrandTotal. If further proof of the intent of this article is required, see here. The entire article is based on a very misleading, skewed and idiosyncratic definition of the term "dark marketing", which has multiple uses and meanings in scholarly literature. See the front page of BrandTotal.com and this post on their blog which are essentially repeated in Dark marketing and are now posing as a Wikipedia article. For more on these issues, see the discussions at Talk:Dark marketing. There's a good argument for completely blowing it up. Minimally, it should be returned to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC). Expanded by Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete . I had also looked for scholarly sources and had concluded that this article does not accurately reflect use of the term "dark marketing" in that literature. I had suggested moving the article back to draft, given the obvious AfC failures here, but I am not convinced that the author has an interest in writing a non-promotional article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing to draftify, since the author has displayed an interest in writing a more neutral draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have carried out a thorough investigation of this article and have concluded that it misrepresents the body of literature (the blog literature) and completely ignores the scholarly literature on the subject. I have provided detailed, evidence-based arguments on the article's talk page. The article is an exercise in spin  and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, with the potential to mislead users. BronHiggs (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: appears to be a likely COI/promotional creation, consisting mostly of original (and poorly done) research. A couple of other editors have been thorough in research attempting to see if it can be improved as is, but WP:TNT seems the best course of action. Melcous (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Do NOT Delete. Please do NOT delete this article for the following reasons. While I am affiliated with BrandTotal, I chose to write this completely on my own without compensation because I believe it's important to have a wikipedia page on dark marketing to share and make known this ongoing phenomenon. Yes, "dark marketing" has other meanings which I included in the article and will continue to include, as this is still a work in progress. There was no previous page on dark marketing and I believe there needs to be one. All BrandTotal ties have been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the article because the intention was never to promote BrandTotal and, instead, is meant to be an informative piece about dark marketing (BrandTotal information was included originally just to provide factual information that "dark marketing" was indeed trademarked by BrandTotal). Additional references to the article were added/changed that support the writing, and others may continue to be added. I am happy to edit and adjust the article to more clearly demonstrate the other meanings an uses of the term "dark marketing" with scholarly literature. PLEASE put it in draft space and do not delete. I do not at all mean to mislead users, since the meaning of dark marketing that I convey is absolutely one of the meanings. Please consider my points above and understand that I have every intention to write about dark marketing solely for the benefit of the wikipedia and marketing community.Rooks12345 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify: per . It's not ready for the mainspace as it appears to be a neologism of sorts but I think it's unfair to the page's author to delete something that has been accepted via AfC that could be notable, verifiable and neutral given enough time and effort.  The AfC accept was probably erroneous (courtesy ping ).    Dr Strauss   talk   09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I am staying neutral as I was the editor who approved it out of AfC. I will state however, that I did not do as much research as some of the above editors into the scholarly level of accuracy in the article. Thus, consideration should be given to them. Thanks to everyone for their work on looking into this. With 1700ish articles in the AfC process waiting for review, it's hard to dig too deep below the surface in reviewing, so please understand that occasionally one may slip through the cracks. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , while I appreciate that the drafts backlog means that researching each and every topic in detail is not realistic, surely you shouldn't be passing drafts with this much unreferenced content? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not delete . Comment. I very much appreciate getting more time to adjust the article so that it demonstrates a more scholarly approach. It has great potential and absolutely does not intend to mislead readers, since the meaning conveyed is certainly a meaning of Dark Marketing. As mentioned previously, the sole intention is to help make the wikipedia and marketing community become more aware of this ongoing phenomenon.Rooks12345 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2nd !vote stricken. Rooks12345, please do not vote twice. Any further comments you make should be preceded by Comment (not Do not delete). Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Simply tacking on "other uses" to the current article is not sufficient. And, no, the meaning conveyed is not one of the accepted ones. The primary focus of the article is the completely proprietary "definition" and analysis used by BrandTotal in their marketing material. The Wikipedia article is simply paraphrasing that material. No other reliable source uses that definition and that analysis. Nor have any independent reliable sources written about BrandTotal's definition. Simply having removed the explicit advertising copy and all the links to BrandTotal's blog and website, does not change the situation. In fact, given that the whole analysis is paraphrased from BrandTotal's materials, the current state of the Wikipedia article is extra misleading since it does not explicitly state where it comes from. The advertising remains but becomes hidden. By closely echoing BrandTotal's marketing material, the Wikipedia article lends credibility to it whether the BrandTotal name is mentioned or not. It is, dare I say, a prime example of "dark marketing". If sent to draft space, the article will have to be completely rewritten from scratch, leaving out all the previous text. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising per above comment/analysis by Voceditenore. I can understand why it was accepted at AfC, (promotions shouldn't be for perfect articles, just those which the reviewer deems likely notable) but it doesn't stand up to deeper scrutiny.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 04:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Draft-ify there's not a feasible mainspace article here at the present time. It's possible this could become one. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify - The subject is notable, but the article isn't quite there yet. Since there aren't problems that are significant enough to warrant a delete in my opinion, but the article still shouldn't be in the mainspace right now, draftifying it is the best route to take. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  00:15, 9 October 2017 (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.