Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hybrid 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. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid marketing

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

Let me confess to almost complete ignorance of the topic - I hope that those with more knowledge will be able to comment. This article reads like a manifesto or advert for a company or group of individuals. It is the work of two editors who have made no other edits anywhere. It is totally unreferenced. It is worded in a way that makes it largely impenetrable without great effort and may possibly be copied from other sources. Now, none of these things alone is an argument for deletion as opposed to rewriting, but taken together it seems to me that without the promotion we are left with no more than a dicdef that does not belong in an encyclopaedia. As I said, this is beyond my areas of expertise, so perhaps others can give an expert view. Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Spam. No sources provided, none found. Gives three external links, the Ford and Dove (Unilever) links don't use the term. The one that does is for that... hmmm ...unknown "101 WORLDWIDE". The article mentions three supposed big names in this supposed next big thing, Jim Farley - Ford's vice president of Marketing, Simon Clift - chief marketing officer at Unilever and Martin Cserba - chief executive officer of the international Hybrid Marketing agency holding 101 WORLDWIDE. What is an "international Hybrid Marketing agency holding"? Well, from the looks of the link they use "new dynamic formats to linear campaigns to generate real impact in an era where traditional marketing and advertising is losing its edge", which the article dutifully reproduces verbatum. I remove it as a copyright vio, but I suspect the author of the phrase is the one who added it to the article. If the concept (vague as it is) intrigues you, who ya gonna call? Ford? Too busy with their cars. Unilever? Too busy with their soaps and such. 101 WORLDWIDE? Golly, they're available for hire! Perhaps "Hybrid marketing" means using wikipedia to advertise your business? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hybrid Marketing stands for adding new dynamic formats to linear campaigns to generate real impact in an era where traditional marketing and advertising is losing its edge.  Hot damn, it's dynamic!  You need to know about this, or your marketing will lose its edge.  Suggest speedy delete: this sort of logorrhea qualifies as patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. All I see here is a craptacular buzzword soup.  Only one of the external links even mentions the term "hybrid marketing', and that's an ad agency's site.  No evidence of notability that I can see.  A Google search gives you a mix of stuff about the marketing of hybrid vehicles and ad agency fluff.  If someone can dig up some real references from reliable sources out of that mess, I might change my mind, but it's looking delete-worthy to me right now. Klausness (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I nominated this article I suspected it was complete bollocks, so I'm glad that others agree. Incidentally, one of the editors responsible for this article has added a link from the Hybrid disambiguation page which states that Hybrid marketing is "the use of the 'New marketing' trends without renouncing to classical advertising". More bollocks, and if this page goes that link needs to go as well. Delete Emeraude (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:21, 23 April 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.