Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not sold in stores (marketing)

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 No consensus to delete. Discussion about merging can be taken up on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sold in stores (marketing)

This article does not assert notability, is not referenced, is inaccurate, and is not written in a suitable style. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. I have no doubt that a concrete and interesting article could be written about this particular catch phrase, but this seems full of inaccurate speculation. "Not sold in stores" doesn't seem to suggest that a particular product is "cutting edge", whatever that means, but rather that the only place to acquire it is by responding to the TV ad.
Suggest that the article As seen on TV (marketing) should meet the same fate as this one, since they may be by the same authors and seem to cover similar subjects in a similar way. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave that page a PROD. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no refs, personal observations, cannot verify. I originally prodded this article, and it was contested. I agreed to wait to give the author time to fix it, but no suitable progress has been made. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well known large marketing and sales genre. Article needs improvements, but that is not a reason to delete --T-rex 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It isn't a genre, it's a term. In it's current state it doesn't meet inclusion criteria.--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I used the term genre losely. Perhpas refering to it as a well used marketing style would be more appropriate --T-rex 19:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems to be a preliminary effort toward discussing a real segment of the modern economy. It needs some cites, and could be better-ordered, but I see no reason to dis it. I suggest that those who wish to dump it should spend some time prettifying it instead. Thanks. Raymondwinn (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why should we waste time "prettyfying" an article which deserves to be deleted? Would "prettyfying" it overcome notability issues? The article above makes no sense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy if the subject is not notable, and a rewrite or "prettyfying" will not make it so. And in this case, it won't. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not policy. This is also a work in progress. This marketing genre is undoubtedly well-known anyway. I see no valid reason to delete being offered. Disclaimer: I am the original author. JeanLatore (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC) You can also comment on me here: Wikipedia:Editor_review/JeanLatore[reply]
- Notability is not a policy?!? Where on earth did you come up with that notion? We delete or retain hundreds of article daily because of notability. It's one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a guideline. Not a policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comment. Notability is a guideline not policy. Please see WP:N. JeanLatore (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I found this in the lead paragraph: "notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic..." Maybe not a policy, but clearly has a major impact on suitability for inclusion. And this subject is not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is one criterion of many. It has no impact on suitability than any of the other criterion, many of which escape simple definition. JeanLatore (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say that notability has no impact on suitability flies in the face of logic and common sense. Notability has a huge impact on suitability, and is the underpinning of most of the criteria for speedy deletion as well as just plain ol' deletion. I think you are trying to confuse the issue, which would indicate you have a budding career as a politician. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Direct selling. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Direct marketing, if there's anything worth keeping. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. But very much weak. It is a notable technique for selling stuff (and I'm tempted to more or less ignore the rules for this one, as it's more or less ingrained into culture), but this one is a bit more questionable than As Seen On TV. Describes the technique, it's fairly notable (watch some commercials for "stuff" in general for this one). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Direct sales or~~ Direct marketing--Cailil ^talk 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Direct sales is a redirect to Direct selling. I've just suggested that Direct selling (which is awful) be merged to the section of the same name in Direct marketing (which is not great, but much better). Feel free to weigh in on the merge. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For some reason this page is still showing up as redlinked in the AFD template on the article itself. I tried taking a look at it but was not able to fix it. Can somebody else take a look see plz? JeanLatore (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Direct marketing as suggested above. The phrases "Not sold in stores" and "As seen on TV" are little more than catchphrases used in this type of marketing and are not, in and of themselves, independently notable. Shereth 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Direct marketing. I've given this one more thought than I usually do. Yes, if this is kept, it isn't likely to become a good or featured article, but most don't. This is a popular cultural phenomenon/phrase and a subset of direct marketing frequently used in television. On the other hand, ultimately, it's really just a phrase that is used in direct marketing, which mirrors a fairly substantial amount of the material here. Unless someone can dig up some linguistic/etymological data on the phrase itself that they could use as sources independent of a section of an article on direct marketing, I think the best thing for this content is to move it to its parent subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Direct marketing. This is yet another marketing tactic. The article itself is nothing more than a definition and example. jonathon (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability by virtue of fact that most American television watchers will recognize the phrase. See Where's the beef? and Think Different. After AfD, consider merging using normal WP:MERGE procedures. Article needs substantial improvement though. All editors are invited to fix it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (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.