Talk:Wikimarketing

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This page was proposed for deletion by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) on 2 March 2023.

This redirect contains a translation of Wikimarketing from es.wikipedia.

@Maddy from Celeste: Hello, here the reference to economipedia was deleted. Do you consider Economipedia is not a valid source? It is an economic encyclopedia. Cartago90 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the references in this article are any good as they all appear to be blogs. I removed those two specifically because they appear to be primarily commercial websites and there thus also is a spam concern. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to economipedia verify the article content, they sell educational courses, but it is still a valid encyclopedia with thousands of definitions. Let´s see what others think.--Cartago90 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have done several improvements: added 3 books, news from Time, El Cronista and deleted blogs and dead links as source. Any feedback? Thanks @ScottishFinnishRadish: @Maddy from Celeste: Cartago90 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The see also section is larger than the article, and you're citing the terms of service and a Wikimedia blog, showing there is no secondary coverage. The types section is almost entirely unsourced. The first book and third book cited are independently published, so not RS , and the second source mentions it twice. Still not seeing this as a notable topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I appreciate your feedback. I corrected the see also section, now divided by columns. About controversy,, I added a source from Slate magazine to show secondary coverage; also there are a lot of related incidents in the article here: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Incidents . The types section source is this, from es:Economipedia, I agree to add again the website as I consider it valid source, see previous section here. About notability, I added another book not independtly published and 2 journals. Please let me know your opinion. Thanks.--Cartago90 (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a self-published dictionary definition doesn't help demonstrate notability, and sources like this, this, and the Slate source you added don't even mention "wikimarketing." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all the blogs as sources. There are no dead links.

• It is a reality that PR/marketing companies or freelancers offer a service where they edit in Wikipedia as paid editors. ~200 companies can be checked here. Incidents made by some of those companies had relevance to be in Wikipedia [1].
• Since 2008 there are different sources who call this service as wikimarketing, (defining that a new type of marketing online) book1, book2, wiki marketing (defining it as new media marketing) journal1, journal2 or wikipedia marketing book3.
• Several companies directly offer the service "wiki marketing" or wikipedia marketing services: [2], [3], [4], [5]

because of this it is a notable topic to be on wikipedia. Cartago90 (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book1, a single mention providing three definitions, of which the one you chose for this article is the third. Specifically mentions this is a neologism that is not in wide use.

Book2 is self published, not reliable and does not contribute to notability.

Journal1 has three mentions. It is a chapter in a self-published book through a novelty press. Not RS, and does not contribute to notability.

Journal2 I don't have access to, but it's a 7 page chapter and the abstract does not mention wikis or wikimarketing. It is a conference paper, and not actually a peer reviewed journal article.

Book3 is self published, not RS, does not contribute to notability.

Just because it is a service offered by some companies online does not mean that it is a notable topic, especially outside of the topic of digital marketing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book2 is published by Atlantic Publishing Company. Why you say is self published?--Cartago90 (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you pay them, and they publish your book. It's a

vanity publisher. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]