Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarketing


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Smarketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD (endorsed by two other editors) removed because creator believes this ghastly and meaningless non-notable neologism is worth an article. I disagree. TheLongTone (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for now https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Smarketing Gregkaye (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:NEO. This is apparently a non-notable neologism of the portmanteau variety which, with Wikipedia's help, may soon be notable and help lead interested prospects to web sites such as smarketingtx.com. The article is sourced to tweets, blogs, and self-published web sites. This reminds me of Explainer video which quickly became a magnet for all manner of spam. No thanks. Fails WP:GNG.- MrX 22:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

About the notaility issues, let me just link you some pages, to see that this is not a made-up word:
 * Keep Maybe not on the mass media but this term is very used in a lot of marketing and sales teams and internal relationships on companies. I don't know what happened with the Explainer video, but the article has been up for almost 2 weeks and none vandalism has occured.
 * <- This is from the [Singapore Management University]
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Luchipe (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. and MrX, as WP:NEO. No notability. Slight usage.  And yes it is a made-up word, specifically of the portmanteau variety, as MrX pointed out. --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but it is good this article was AfD-ed, since it was entirely WP:REFSPAM, with promotional links to marketers hawking Smarketing. The spam is removed, reliable sources added. Notability is established with articles in marketing and sales publications devoted entirely to Smarketing. Not a neologism; term apparently has been in use since 2000. Sources include B2B Smarketing: The 5 Steps To Make Sales and Marketing Work Together, ‘Smarketing’ to the rescue, Smarketing: plus this one, another one, generally notable subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)



*Keep: Exactly, as User:Tomwsulcer says the word has been in the marketing world for many years and is notable enough to keep an article here.Luchipe (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ...duplicate vote by page creator struck through.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | comment _ 02:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete--with kudos for the cleanup, but a few recent articles on this term in some magazines don't add up to encyclopedic notability. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? The general notability guideline is quite clear If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. It is an important concept in the world of marketing, particularly regarding business-to-business marketing. Please can you give a better reason for not following the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't answer loaded questions. I will say, for the sake of redundancy, that this is neither in-depth, significant discussion, nor a reliable source of any kind of standing. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why the question "why not?" is loaded. I am merely seeking clarification of your view. I see the Social Media Today site as reliable in that it says essentially what the other references say regarding what Smarketing is all about. There are four other sources including the Journal of Sales & Marketing Management which has been around a long time in the marketing world which are independent, discuss the subject in-depth, and are reliable. Further, more sources can be found, if needed, so I do not understand your 'delete' vote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - a google searched turned up quite a bit on the topic. It seems to be a neologism that is catching on in a big way. Bali88 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Again, not a Neologism, do a google search restraining the results from 2000 to 2005 and a lot of results come up. I'll leave here two links:
 * 
 * 

There are a lot of companies that specialise in smarketing, and it has been a growing term over the last years. I guess the notability issue is well passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luchipe (talk • contribs) 10:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on the keep/delete spectrum, but I did play around a bit with time-constrained google searches.  The earliest I can come up with is http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Editorial/Magazine-Features/Smarketing!-48506.aspx, in January 2000.  I'm not sure how neo something has to be to be considered a neologism, but 14-1/2 years seems like enough time to me.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2014 (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.