Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branded 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branded Marketing

Although there are plenty of refs in the article, none of them provide significant coverage, as required by the guideline on notability. the product they release, the pr1macard could be notable, but this parent company seems not to be Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like advertisement/press relece, not formated or referanced according to wiki guidelines. an artcle with that much information about a company that hasn't relieced any products gives me the heebie jeebies to begin with, but I smell a marketing sceme.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of this product and company on the hispanic and latino market is expected to be profound, since they are one of the first to target immigrants and low-income population in a way that will educate the community and build their financial credibility. They do not yet have much press or attention outside the little that the hispanic press has given their announced product release, but they will be releasing their product in April and will have more references at that point. In the meantime, there is no real contact information or advertising in this article and I have tried to introduce the research about the latino and hispanic market to illustrate the credibility of the market segment and products that address that segment. I am not an employee of this company but was asked to review their material and write an article for them since they did not know how to use Wikipedia 24.119.19.52 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)SuObijiski[reply]

Comment um...if you where asked to review their material and write an article for them on wikipedia you are in fact advertising for them...your wages and where they come from are your consern, however those actions are incompatable with wikipeida policy. See WP:SPAM to better understand what was violated. wikipedia isn't a website to get free advertising Coffeepusher (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling this is utterly impossible but the thing reads like a prospectus. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The article provides references, but none of them can be used to establish notabilty. References 1 through 7 are not reliable (Company's own website, etc.). The Business Week (reference 8) article doesn't even mention the name of the company so I'm not sure why it's even there. Reference 9 is just a pointer to a website. That's not even an article, and there's doesn't appear to be any information about the company on the site. And reference 10 isn't about the company either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all the points made but I must say that I am surprised at the cynicism expressed here. The company is trying to highlight the hispanic and latino market and offer a valuable service. I recognize that they have no real verifiable references or credibility because they have yet to launch the product and I advised them that they probably need to wait for Wiki to catch up to them as other businesses focus on this market and it gains more noteriety. However, having seen a lot of PR and marketing hype in my life and understanding that this type of publication has to be accompanied by a lot of contact and sales info in order to be effective in attracting customers I am not sure how we can look at this as marketing or a prospectus. A prospectus by its nature is meant to attract investors and this company already HAS partners like Mastercard so they are clearly not looking for investors. While I can certianly take your points and understand if you delete this article, I suppose I cannot understand the cynicism in the comments. I suppose it comes from looking at a lot of Wiki spam. I agreed to take this on as a writer because I believed that the shift in societal focus and ethnic education was worthy of comment. I also understand that Wiki has its guidelines which at times feel to me a bit like the opinion and relevance police and in an environment that was created to pool knowledge and information for public consumption, that often seems at odds to me. Su Obijiski (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SuObijiski[reply]

Could you expand on your statement "...I advised them that they probably need to wait for Wiki to catch up to them as other businesses focus on this market and it gains more noteriety." I am reading this as indicating you were asked by the company to create the article on their behalf. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S/He was "I am not an employee of this company but was asked to review their material and write an article for them since they did not know how to use Wikipedia" comment from IP above.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.