Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal branding (2nd nomination)
Source: 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 keep. Daniel Bryant 09:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal branding (2nd nomination)
- Personal_branding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
linkspam, no cleanup in almost a year, pure abuse of wikipedia regardless of merits of article. The previous debate focused simply on merits of the article, rather than the content. Just because an article should exist, doesn't mean we should retain one filled with linkspam which no one but the spammers care about. --Mattarata 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - this is a new trend in marketing and branding. The content will enhance, as people have a further understanding of the concept.
- Comment if this is kept, but no one bothers changing the text again, I am going to blank the article and replace the text with "Personal branding is branding which is personal". --Xyzzyplugh 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you could take sources such as this article in Management Communication Quarterly, this article in Communication Research, and chapter 9 of ISBN 0471263664 and write a proper stub. ☺ Uncle G 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, good point, assuming this is kept, one of those who votes Keep should do that. (I don't write articles myself, not even stubs) --Xyzzyplugh 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great links, perhaps if they were included in the article instead of all the personal blogs and "branding experts" sites, then the article wouldn't need to be deleted. --Mattarata 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you could take sources such as this article in Management Communication Quarterly, this article in Communication Research, and chapter 9 of ISBN 0471263664 and write a proper stub. ☺ Uncle G 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The subject is notable and the article has margins for improvement. Although it's quite poorly written, it has sufficient context in order to be kept and improved.--Orthologist 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I didn't do the best cleanup job in the world, and it still needs work, and I don't have easy access to ISBN 0471263664 at the moment, nor did I read the entire text of those journal articles, but I did a bit of copyediting and reorganizing, and I added Uncle G's sources, so someone else could use them . . . anyway, I obviously think it should be kept. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: simply not an encyclopedic article (at time of voting). Pavel Vozenilek 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep There is more than sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about personal branding. With so much available source material, the article could be turned into an FA article. -- Jreferee 06:26, 18 March 2007 (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.