Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Influence 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 - unanimous vote--JForget 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Influence Marketing

Possibly notable, but host of MoS issues and blatant advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, this social influence marketing thing sounds really interesting. Maybe we should try it sometime. After all, if the community can reassure me that it has benefits then it must be a good idea. But still, Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. And the fact that the term is trademarked somehow makes me question its notability. Calgary (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is certainly notable, but this is an unsalvageable advertisement. Townlake (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - partly advert, mostly how-to guide. I could imagine an encyclopedic article with this title, but if I wanted to get there I wouldn't start from here. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: whether the term is notable or not, the current text:

But why does social influence marketing matter to you, and does social influence marketing translate into real digital marketing tactics?

The answers to both those questions essentially point to the future of social media for marketers. So let’s examine them carefully.

is such complete bollocks that no harm would be done by requiring any future article to start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing of salvageable value -Rushyo (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been tidied up quite a bit and makes a lot more coherent sense. Not sure if it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.253.94 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 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.