Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of marketing thought


 * 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. If Bartel's book is notable, then one can write an article on the book, rather than writing a coat rack to hang a vague article on. Black Kite 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

History of marketing thought

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The title of the article corresponds exactly to a cursory glance at the Ghits. This is probably unsurprising. However, as a career marketing person, since 1979, I can say with clarity that at no time has any thought been given by my colleagues to histories of marketing thought.

This leads me to the conclusion, a conclusion which I admit freely is original research, that the article is placed to promote Bartels and his book, or as spam.

This I have brought the article here for community consideration. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete: I made the redirect and I think it is harmless enough, although maybe unlikely to searched on. The article it replaced was another matter. I have no idea what "marketing thought" means apart from "marketing" or "marketing theory". It seems a strange coinage and it doesn't deserve an article if it is not in general usage. I am not very happy with the History of marketing article either. It also seems to promote the term "marketing thought" and it seems odd that it is a separate article rather than a section within the Marketing article. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirect has been replaced with the original content. This is probably helpful from the point of this deletion discussion but it does mean that I am changing my recommendation to delete unless there is solid proof that marketing thought is a mainstream term and that it has a meaning and history distinct from that of marketing itself. The fact that it lacks any article of its own makes me very suspicious. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect was replaced as blanking the page is not according to the deletion procedures. Also, please check this two articles upon which I am basing my edits: and Hollander, Stanley C.; Rassuli, Kathleen M.;, Jones, D. G. Brian; Dix, Laura Farlow (2005). "Periodization in Marketing History". Journal of Macromarketing Volume 25 (Issue 1): Pages: 32-41. Editor br (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would just like to make it very clear that I did not blank the article while deletion was under discussion. If you look at the history you will see that I made the redirect shortly before the AfD was started, independently, by somebody else. I have done nothing contrary to the deletion process. I could not have done, even if I had wanted to, as we were not in the deletion process at the time. I don't think that anybody else has done anything wrong either. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please check the outline proposed in History of marketing. Editor br (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Marketing thought" is used 3,390 times in Google Scholar. Editor br (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear editors, I am trying to revamp the marketing related articles, and I am starting to edit and create articles on the field. The basis of my research are cited in both "History of Marketing" and "History of Marketing Thought". No original research was conducted. I ask you to check the references I cited. Some of them can be checked for free in Google Books. I am a career marketing person as well, and I am trying to deepen the articles related to marketing using scholarly sources. If you don't agree with my approach, you're welcome to question it in the discussion page of the "History of Marketing" discussion page, where I laid out the plan: first, build the content about the history of marketing in a separate page and summarize in the main article. If you all disagree with this approach, I am happy to edit them in my user page and submit them once I finished writing all of them, as it may take a while. Warm regards, Editor br (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some facts: Google Scholar  points out to 382 articles with the term "history of marketing thought", versus  9 times to the term "history of marketing theory". Furthermore, Google Scholar points out  1,010 to "history of marketing", and  1,590 to "marketing history". Though "history of marketing thought" is used much less frequently, I dispute the fact that this is an unknown term. Thoughts? Editor br (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Final note: as I notice that this topic is controversial, I am happy to edit the "History of Marketing", that was abandoned since March 08', and later, if there is a need, expand it to a new article if necessary. If the community believe this article deserves to be deleted, I am happy with it. Please note that I am very concerned with the quality of the Marketing articles in Wikipedia, and I began with "History of Marketing". As both of you (Fiddle Faddle and DanielRigal) seem knowledgeable in Marketing, I am happy with help in editing these articles. Warm regards, Editor br (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems analogous to History of economic thought. There are probably plenty of sources available on the subject.  I can't see a reason to delete the article.  Keep. Protonk (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not valid to use an argument that other articles exist in a deletion discussion. Nor is an agrument "I can't see a reason to delete the article" one that holds any great validity.  Instead one must look at the article as an article and the topic for notability and for assertion of that notability within the article.  I view one of the references as spam for an author and book, the concept as non notable, and the article as invalid here.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of WP:WAX. I wasn't suggesting that because HoET exists that History of marketing thought (or any other discipline) must exist.  I was suggesting that the topic area seems like a reasonable one (as in, not inherently essay-like or prone to OR) and that this is a scope at which research is conducted and published (so that the summary of that research to write this article would be straightforward).  As for your claim that my "I can't see a reason to delete this article" is unpersuasive, I'll be more clear.  You failed to provide a convincing case as to which guidelines for inclusion this article does not meet, why editing of this article could not bring it within those guidelines and what evidence you have to support those claims.  Near as I could tell, your nomination was based on your declaration that "history of marketing thought" wasn't discussed by marketeers and that you felt the article served as publicity for the first reference.  The first claim is utterly underwhelming.  The quoted term, "History of marketing thought" receives ~400 hits on google scholar, Bartels's book is cited 169 times in scholarly publications, the same quoted term receives ~250 hits in google books and over 4,000 on google web.  The second claim, that the article serves as promotion for Bartels, is likewise inaccurate.  The book itself may meet the notability guideline for books, it is certainly not marginal or unknown.  Further, how is the article itself acting as promotion for the book?  It is simply a cited reference.  The article is an unassuming stub, linked from and explained at History of marketing (where the context provided shows the specific nature of the term).  So as I said: there are plenty of sources available on the subject, the term seems valid, and there are no compelling reasons offered for deletion.  Thank you. Protonk (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not appear so upset at my rather unclear nomination rationale. I was clear that I have brought it here for the community to consider.  The person closing this discussion will also see my woolly rationale and make a closing judgement about it.  We do not always have to be crystal clear about something to have a feeling that it is "not really appropriate" and to ask the community to decide.  That is what the community is for, isn't it, "the wisdom of crowds"?  I am not always wise.  But we, together tend to be.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset at your nomination. I would have preferred that it be complete, precise and clear, but that is a personal preference which does cause emotion or distress.  I made a keep "vote".  You responded telling me that my arguments were insufficient.  I made sure that they were sufficient in response.  That's all. Protonk (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.   —DanielRigal (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —DanielRigal (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We want more than 'harmless enough' we want notable. I see no evidence for the general use as a specific term, not just a variation on titles. If we did want an article on this sub-subject, it would be History of marketing theory, as the ordinary english construction for such things, and it would mention a wider range of sources. DGG (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fascinating and very broad topic which marketers can face up to with definitional and boundary-delimiting work. Best kept distinct from History of marketing to ease confusions. Give a stub a few months to develop and prove itself content-wise. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Marketing thought? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Witty retort WP:What about article X? :P Protonk (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (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.