- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Brand infiltration
- Brand infiltration ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not explain what the topic is about. A "practice", a "campaign", that's utterly vague. References mentioned in the article don't tell anything about the subject. I can't find any meaningful information on internet about the term except [ [1]], here the term appears in the title of what looks like a sort of advertisement for a marketing company. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. If this is a real marketing term, rather than just a trademark used by one marketing agency, it needs a much better article than this. This article looks like a bunch of buzzwords strung together without proper sourcing. (Of the three citations in the article, the first doesn't mention the term and the second is a broken link.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as "business spam" and an apparent personal essay. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Brand infiltration
- Brand infiltration ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not explain what the topic is about. A "practice", a "campaign", that's utterly vague. References mentioned in the article don't tell anything about the subject. I can't find any meaningful information on internet about the term except [ [1]], here the term appears in the title of what looks like a sort of advertisement for a marketing company. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. If this is a real marketing term, rather than just a trademark used by one marketing agency, it needs a much better article than this. This article looks like a bunch of buzzwords strung together without proper sourcing. (Of the three citations in the article, the first doesn't mention the term and the second is a broken link.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as "business spam" and an apparent personal essay. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.