Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing resource management


 * 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. Concerns over sourcing are particularly well-taken here ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Marketing resource management

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This looks like a WP:NEOLOGISM that has been created, replete with marketing jargon about "aligning people" and providing "solutions", via a single source. The article has already been briefly discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and doubts were cast regarding its notability. Am following through with that concern and nominating for deletion as promotional spam. A loose necktie (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

* Speedy keep: Comment: The article has been in existence for over 12 years. About two weeks ago I had cause to wikilink to it (or maybe something similar I forget and related to an article I won't mention) and noticed it had no references and added one. More fool me. Been scummered all over WP:RSN that source has. Now the good people bringing this here and and at WP:RSN seem not to have noticed the same IP making, , before  and. Okay there is no proof these are the same person and they are year apart. But talk about co-incidence. Okay I suspect it started as a WP:NEOLOGISM but I now have 100,000+ google hits and I'm reasonably minded usage has waned ... but that is not a reason for delete. And what about isbn 978-9081330510 ? ... why was this not picked up at WP:BEFORE and mentioned ? Given the recent reference addition templating would likely be a better solution than dragging immediately to AfD. But an article improvement is likely needed more than deletion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I'm noting a Gartner report from 2001, Gartner definition, Deloitte uses it], This work by S. Doyle .... and more from where they came from. Its quite reasonable for people to ask Wikipedia what the term means.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For clarification: the human being writing this message right now is the same person who made the RS post, and the edit with "capiTaliZation" in the edit summary. However, I am not the same person who made the earlier edits to Marketing resource management.  (When I log on from a new location, I often check the contributions of the IP address there out of curiosity; that's how I found the article, in its sad state.)  --75.102.233.171 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The discussion was not allowed to run for 168 hours, in my view this was not best practice and contravenes WP:NotEarly, sometimes its the last hours or even a tad beyond people make comments that are helpful pre-relist. As per any time this happens at AfD which in the past has disrupted my RL I request the good faith relister who does a lot of good AfD work does not handle AfD relists for this article again.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * delete: neutral Comment: I've struck my speedy keep about as no longer applies.  The article is tainted and stalked by an IP from the Windy City.  The good faith reference I added do it to try to improve it from no sources to one source is positively cursed.  I found it here.  Purged from Wikipedia in what I still allege was a fail to follow procedure by / and blocked by discussion at Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 and Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18   by ++  ...   Not to mention backdoored at WP:RSN by WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259 to AfD.  With all this this incarnation of Marketing resource management is doomed and the paid editor of Aprimo is free to promote DAM and remove traces of MRM.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If deleted as pure WP:NEOLOGISM any good faith attempt to create a draft coud be speedied. While the current incarnation is tainted (I'd accept a delete current incarnation no prevention against a good faith replacement) I'm not happy to blanket ban against anyone who followed.  The article beyond the first sentence is rubbish.  It's inappropriate for me to do anything while I have a delete in place so I've moved to neutral and might try article improvement.  DW&WR can wait.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark – I've been as patient as I can possibly be, however, if you intend to keep weaving complaints about the failure of your Deletion Review proposal into every possible topic on Wikipedia for the indeterminate future – no matter how tangentially related – I really have to insist you stop pinging me into them. I'm in the middle of two GA reviews at the moment and really just don't have any more time to devote to this silliness. The fixation you've lately demonstrated on this long ago passed the threshold into the realm of disruption. In the most collegial way possible I'd suggest you try to find other subjects or activities on WP to interest you before a less collegiate editor suggests a TBAN. Also, I'm afraid I generally can't comprehend the substance of most of your comments (though 75.102.233.171 seems to have a similar style of writing to you and I can't understand what they're saying either, so perhaps it's just me). Chetsford (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - This is a clear WP:NEOLOGISM problem, per nominator. From my research, it's an entirely made up term and is being used as promotional material. Strong hints of COI here. I don't think this article contributes positively to WP. Skirts89 11:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete completely unsourced neologism. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect or selective merge to marketing operations management, an overlapping concept. If Gartner devoted a report to this topic 18 years ago, the topic is neither unsourced nor a neologism. It shows up in a Gbooks search in multiple sources. It's closely related to marketing operations management and is treated as a synonym in some sources. The page itself received 1,266 views over the past 30 days, suggesting it is a real search term. I haven't done enough in-depth research to tell if there is sufficient sourcing out there for notability. Gartner is behind a paywall for me. But a redirect and perhaps selective merge of sources and a couple of sentences to a closely related topic is a reasonable alternative to deletion per WP:ATD for readers wanting to know what this topic is about and where to look for further info. -- 19:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The version of the article at the point of nomination was this .  reflects where I have done some restructuring leaving most of that underlying content unchanged (some has been removed) with some additional sources and templating.  I intend to apply further improvements however I will be using a series of edits over a few days and have elected to use a sandbox for that purpose rather than mainspace under construction as interim edits may be drafts and inconsistent.  To state the obvious many comments above be applicable to all versions of an article with this name, some will pertain to the version at time of comment. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article as now stands following improvement is rightfully sourced and sustained coverage and coverage in depth sates WP:NEO in terms of retention. That is not so say article isn't free of issues and in need of content improvement but those are not AfD matters per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  I'd be highly concerned about a redirect/merge given the improvements to this article to the current Market operations management Marketing operations management (which I removed 2 references from yesterday leaving an MPM! source).  While ultimately I might support a good quality redirect or merge properly done I can't see an obvious target and such matters are best discussed outside AfD.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:ADVOCACY for a current neologism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is reasonable to assume that is directed at me, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me not to comment outside a reasonable timescale if elseone has not done so. If it is so directed then rightfully a WP:TBAN needs also to raised.  But advocacy may apply to other major content contributors also.  Marketing Resource Management has been in use for about 20 years or more now.  It has been regularly used in product names by various competing manufacturers, though my perception is use of the term is waning and may be becoming historic.  It seems reasonable people may wish to look it up on Wikipedia to see what MRM is/was about.  The  was in my opinion (and from other opinions above) a mess (though I had added a reference to it a week or two before as a side activity when trying to understand MRM).  I ended up reworking the article top to toe, though I did use the original as a starting point and while I used an intermediate sandbox I put edits back in one by one so I hoped my reasoning can be followed rather than a one shot copy-paste.  There may be apparent views I am promoting MRM over Marketing Operations Management (MOM) and some edits I made may reasonably lead to that conclusion.  These would include removal of MOM from the lede of the MRM article, removal of references from the MOM article and questioning the remaining reference, and taking action and commenting on an editor who made an unsigned essayed opinion on the MOM talk page of the article who had been promoting his own company elsewhere.  Basically one issue I have with merger at this time is that the suggestion MRM=MOM has been in Wikipedia for about 10 years and *some* later sources are using Wikipedia as a source for the assertion.  I have a feeling MRM was before MOM but will place no bet on this.  While I'd welcome a merge discussion I strongly feel the MOM article would need cleanup first and also strong sources identified first that support MRM=MOM (they probably exist); these are best done outside AfD (and I am not volunteering).  In the event MRM is deleted MOM, EMM and likely others on Template:Marketing operations will need to be examined, that may need to happen anyway.   Indeed nearly anything marketing possibly needs careful neutrality scrutiny as these are the people aiming to sell one the Emperor's old clothes.  In overall context this article is now reasonably neutral and reasonably descriptive and not trying to explicitly align people. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2019 (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.