Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance-based advertising


 * 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 keep. Michig (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Performance-based advertising

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No improvement since 2009 and Wiki is not a buzz word dictionary. It's becoming a repository for contents created simply to support adding junk references Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be a notable concept. The external links section alone has numerous reliable sources&mdash;valid academic papers published by faculty at major universities that discuss this concept as being significant to the online advertising industry. The nominator should read WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTCLEANUP, which are considered invalid reasons for deletion. postdlf (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. I'm sure this terminology has been used inconsistently by a few people in the industry. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia articles are about objective phenomena that people widely agree what they are. This is an essay at best. No third party sources exist to really establish this as a separate phenomenon. It would be ok with me if someone could redirect this to an advertising-related article with a section on this type of thing. Vcessayist (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable concept, well covered in academic papers from reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  11:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Keep per WP:BEFORE. Even a cursory look at possible news and scholarly sources show many possible uses. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2012 (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.