Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infotisement

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. Deor (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infotisement

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

This article does not cite any references or sources. And I don't think it's notable enough for wikipedia. A8v (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Advertorial. As far as I can tell, they're the same thing, but feel free to prove me wrong. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely invented term without any use outside one person's definition; all 'print pieces as ads' are just known as advertorials or paid advertisements, not this. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; see also Talk:Shockvertising. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2014 (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.