Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employer branding


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Employer branding

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Reads like an entry-level freshman marketing paper, with a side effort to sell the reader on the value of "employer branding" strategy. Lengthy quotes strung together create the worst of both plagiarism and original research. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Possible move to Wiktionary : Poor article; not encylopedic. Edited so many times beyond recognition, it never seems to be a stable article. Possibly deserves a one line entry in Wiktionary. Mattg82 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (ec) Realize that this article has existed since 2004, in many different versions. There may be a halfway-decent version somewhere in the article history. It does seem to be a viable topic; see, , , etc. Zagalejo^^^ 23:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, heavy cleanup - verifiable topic, pretty much referenced, although chaotic text. "Poor article" not a reason for deletion - we could have deleted half wikipedia on this criterion. Attributed lengthy quotes is exact opposite to plagiarism. - Altenmann >t 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: 'Poor article' was perhaps a hasty OTT comment. Looking at the article history further, there seems to a non-consensus as to what Employer branding means, which is maybe a reason why the article has become a bunch of quotes. Mattg82 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please note that this is a remnant of some kind of college project, and there's a lot of information about the project and the other articles on one of the numerous talkpages involved. I wish I could find that talkpage, but I haven't been able to; it was a long time ago. I was in no way involved in that project; the article merely caught my eye and I tried to clean it up. Unfortunately it remained poor, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. It never was encyclopedic, not at the beginning and not now. Bishonen | talk 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete per Bishonen. No logical scope; inherently unlikely to be clearly defined or become an encyclopedic subject. Might indeed be a dicdef as a common term; but do not recommend sending to Wiktionary as this is not a definition either. I reject "verifiable topic" on scope grounds, sorry. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:13, 12 December 2009 (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.