Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three C's of Selling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three C's of Selling[edit]
- Three C's of Selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD with no rationale for tag removal. An essay on marketing wholly inapproprite for inclusion in encyclopedia. TheLongTone (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per apparent failure to meet WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are lots of 'C' in selling, including confuse (the buyer), criticise (rival products), and corrupt (as in bribe). For an article title such as this to work in Wikipedia, the title does not just have to be notable in the sense that others have used it, it has to be sufficiently established to have a clear and recognised meaning as in Three Kingdoms. Otherwise it could just as well be two, or four, or any other number, and any word could just as well be substituted for one of the others depending on the point of view of the editor. In any case, Wikipedia is not a guide on how to do something. --AJHingston (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete – This does not meet notability requirements at all and is someone’s opinion/original way of making marketing easier for the masses. The style of writing is completely un-encyclopaedic and would be better suited to a “Marketing for Dummies” book. Furthermore, the article is based around a single source from a very low-key marketing consultancy website and could be in violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. BarkingNigel (talk) 16:26, 3 October 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.