Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-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 delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  23:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

E-marketing
The time has come to nuke this crap from orbit. This article may have been around since 2003, but is one of the biggest farces ever on Wikipedia. If you read the article, it barely touches on E-Marketing, instead it focues on David Chaffey's emarketing book. Why is that? Well, that's because User:Dchaffey wrote the damn thing to promote his book in 2003. And since then no one has done anything about it, oh, apart from when his advert got too long and ended up split to Online marketing. I've tagged it with cleanup and merge, but its best to just kill this dead. I'm sure our link did wonders for his google rank, especially as this article was linked to from Template:Marketing (link since removed). For further comments see Talk:E-marketing. - Hahnch e  n 00:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This term appears to be a valid one, but it's almost synonymous with online marketing, for which we have a far superior article. Redirect to online marketing (but don't merge, because there's nothing worth merging). I don't think that there's enough general information on all types of e-marketing to warrant a full article on it.  Ultra-Loser  Talk / Contributions 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect per Ultra-Loser. TJ Spyke 01:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per above. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * YOU ARE ALL WRONG - Redirect to Internet marketing after a delete. Online marketing is another farcical advertisement from David Chaffey.  I have not yet nominated Online marketing as they may be some germs of ideas worth keeping in that one. - Hahnch  e  n 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete don't redirect, it's a ploy article designed for advertisement of a product.--MonkBirdDuke 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per MonkBirdDuke eaolson 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete first, then redirect to Internet marketing. Get rid of advertising. --N Shar 04:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Ultra-Loster. Consequentially 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Internet marketing. Robertissimo 04:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. EVula 06:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Emeraude 11:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge At the very least this page should be a redirect to online marketing, and the (small amount) of information moved there. No reason to have this as a blank page when we can redirect visitors to what they're looking for. Mike | Talk 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no merge, no redirect: vague and abstract, tautological prose. So E-marketing is marketing that uses electronic technologies, is it?  What will they think of next? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, we have three of these articles that are all basically on the same subject. We only need one. Pogo 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above.UberCryxic 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. My personal opinion is that this kind of stuff will be our biggest problem for years to come. Vandals and cruft we can handle, but this kind of stuff is truly insidious because of how well it is done. See Raul's Sixth Law of Wikipedia. -- Satori Son 02:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT soapbox. Ohconfucius 10:06, 24 October 2006 (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.