Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate social media

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. (non-admin closure) — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate social media

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unremarkable concept that has only a single citation. Just because someone writes a book on some topic doesn't make the topic notable for it's own article. May as well have articles on corporate use of fax machines or corporate use of telephones. JOJ ^Hutton 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corporate use of social networking for marketing and public relations is a major topic in the field of media/advertising/PR[1][2][3][4][5]. This article is very stublike and currently not very useful, but if expanded it's a valid topic and I can't see anywhere else that this topic is covered (not Social networking service or Facebook; and Social network advertising and Social Media Targeting are slightly different). (As for whether corporate use of telephones is a valid topic for WP, I don't see you arguing for deletion of business telephone system, call centre or cold calling.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Major? A little bit of puffery there. The use of social media by business is no more notable than the use of the telephone. Or the use of the stapler. I bet more papers get stapled by businesses than social media posts. The page is obviously redundant example of oversimplifying the importance of everyday mundane business practices. Its' new however, so therefore the business use of social media gets a few articles written about it. This is no more "major" than any other business technique. It's just new, but not notable for Wikipedia.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. The topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline with ease:

Joel Postman (2009), SocialCorp: Social Media Goes Corporate, ISBN 9780321580085
2011 Fortune 500 - UMass Dartmouth
Big Bird Tweets: How corporations use social media to gauge public persona - Computerworld
Social media is reinventing how business is done – USATODAY.com
How To Use Social Media To Promote Your Small Business - Forbes

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no doubt that a few sources on the topic can be found. Thats great for inclusion in Wikipedia, but hardly a rationale for having a stand alone article, based on a single aspect of business. --JOJ ^Hutton 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR, regardless of whatever can be found on Google to show significant coverage in multiple good sources, which by the way, has been shown, per WP:GNG. It is axiomatic that our encyclopedia has articles on topics of interest to our core readership, who are students. Many otherwise odd yet commonplace articles exist here at WP, and have been kept over and over again at AfD. This is an obvious, commense-sense example. Northamerica has found several good sources and has added them to the article, which is now good enough for me. Please move on, nothing to see here except a few snowflakes. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So interesting for our core readership that the article only averaged 10 hits a day in June. Nobody's reading the article, or at least not that many. Even Farrell's had to give it up once they figured out that nobody was showing up anymore. Better to redirect this page to Social media marketing. That page receives a whole heck of a lot more traffic, and basically says the same exact thing.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Enterprise social networking Samsara (FA • FP) 16:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy cow!! Is that yet another article that covers the same exact topic. Yeee Doggie, that sure is a lot of articles about the same concept.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:40, 14 July 2012 (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.