Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soft sell


 * 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, WP:SNOW. Mandsford 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Soft sell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original synthesis, original research and whatnot. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable concept... Google search yields thousands of relevant hits. Tag with improve refs instead. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - As Jim says, it's clearly a notable concept with plenty of research available for citation. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE.  If the nominator had done simple online searches, he would have found many good sources.  This is a notable term in marketing and political science. AfD is not for clean-up of valid stubs. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletionist nonsense. So notable that band Soft Cell is a pun of the concept. Antonym hard sell is also well-known. They should be expanded, not deleted. A number of soft sell techniques have been developed, all of which should be discussed. Jokestress (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Name-calling is not appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that this was a good faith but misguided attempt to contest a Proposed Deletion rather than to nominate an article for deletion for the reasons stated. Because if it was the latter it was an amazingly poor nomination, given that this is a valid stub that cites sources written by credentialed experts (professors at UCB and the University of Cincinatti for two) from which it can be expanded &mdash; citations that were in the very first revision of the article &mdash; and that even the most minimal of research on the nominator's part would have turned up more sources (such as, for example, one written by the now professor Barbara Mueller at San Diego State University and professor Charles R. Taylor of Villanova University: ) addressing this subject.  Per deletion policy, keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator doesn't have to do research, ever heard of WP:BURDEN?  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to read that properly. It doesn't absolve you of the burden of looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion, nor does it absolve you of the responsibility of even simply reading an article before nominating it for deletion to see sources already in the article from its very first revision onwards.  Our verifiability policy is not a licence for you or any other person to go around tagging things for deletion and then claiming that WP:BURDEN absolves you of the responsibility of doing any actual work yourself while you create work for others.  Working on the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem for one to burden-shift one's way out of.  Go and read Articles for deletion, Guide to deletion, Deletion policy, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough to have been the subject of multiple books, and that's good enough for me. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments and P&G noted by Uncle G, and the other keep arguments. Meets WP:V and WP:N. I would have contested the PROD also, as it isn't a dicdef, but the AfD nomination rationale of SYNTH and OR is not supported by the references. — Becksguy (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Even though the article is currently a WP:DICDEF, the concept is immediately notable and by any standard passed WP:GNG. Suggest that this AfD be WP:SNOWed. — Chromancer  talk/cont 21:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chromancer. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (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.