Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pipeline 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline marketing[edit]

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

This concept appears non-notable and possibly is itself a marketing/advert vehicle. It's poorly referenced, lots of WP:OR —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OR and lack of notability. I have not found any notable source that can support the existence of this alleged kind of marketing. It seems to me just a new buzzword invented by someone. As far as I know, this is not an expression used in the marketing field, online or offline. What the article (very very confusingly) describes is something identical or extremely similar to Account-based marketing, for which Wikipedia already has an article. LowLevel73^(talk) 02:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that this would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic. The article does indeed read like a sales pitch and feels very much at odds with that articles should not resemble persuasive essays considering much of the article consists of original research. Many of the sources in the article do not even mention the topic. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is non-notable article, no sources. Frmorrison (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is about as classic a case of coat-rack for spam as I've seen in months. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 3 November 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.