Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private label rights

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 redirect to Digital marketing. If someone wants to merge selectively well sourced content, the history is under the redirect Star Mississippi 15:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private label rights[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Online marketing WP:CRUFT full of original research and hasn't been sourced in over 10 years. If this is a notable concept, could probably just be a sentence in internet marketing. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital marketing. I did find a few sources including a study on the "Impact of Brand Image, Product Quality and Self-Efficacy on Purchase Decisions on Private Label Rights Products" and a Reuters report on the impact of PLRs on Amazon's Kindle marketplace but I couldn't find any other reliable independent sources, mostly just blogs and marketing material. There's not enough coverage to meet GNG for a stand alone article, but there's enough to mention it in the article on the broader topic. With consistently a few dozen page views a day it appears to be a reasonable search term at the very least. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly per WP:TNT. The subject is likely notable. I thought about whether it should just be included in the private label article, but that doesn't quite make sense. I also don't think it makes sense to include in the digital marketing article. That leaves us with a stand-alone article, but the one we have has zero sources, hence TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital marketing: Per Qwaiiplayer. It's best to for it to be discussed in the target article. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citations, does not appear notable. Gusfriend (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Poorly-written article, but the topic is notable. PLR content has been used to flood e-book stores with titles of low quality; different authors buy non-exclusive PLR, put an original title page on, and sell the books en masse. You can find news coverage about it from as early as 2011. I vote to keep, but because I work for a company affected by PLR books, I will abstain from editing the article. White 720 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide examples of news coverage? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest turns up:
Schiller, K. (2011, 10). Looking beyond the bytes. Information Today, 28, 23. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?accountid=1135?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/looking-beyond-bytes/docview/897599855/se-2?accountid=1135

Amazon axes copied content, duplicate kindle store ebooks get the boot (2011). . New York: Newstex. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?accountid=1135?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/amazon-axes-copied-content-duplicate-kindle-store/docview/883267952/se-2?accountid=1135

Power, D. (2008, 07). Begin writing for internet markets. The Writer, 121, 46-47. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?accountid=1135?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/begin-writing-internet-markets/docview/214102504/se-2?accountid=1135
White 720 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second source (a short egadnet blog post) I wouldn't count towards GNG. The other two sources, while reliable, are relatively brief mentions that could be utilized if this were merged into another article, but not enough to warrant a stand alone article for this subject. Most of the rest of the ProQuest results on this topic are either press releases or blog posts which don't count towards GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough — I will shed no tears if this article gets deleted, as it likely will be. White 720 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above analysis which indicates insufficient coverage in sources; perhaps briefly mention in a related article. Sandstein 11:43, 11 March 2022 (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.