Rbjewell

AfD nomination of Delegation marketing

Delegation marketing, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Delegation marketing satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegation marketing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Delegation marketing during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toohool (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Delegation management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Delegation management is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Delegation management saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've received your note, and I think there must be some sort of misunderstanding. I've looked into the history of Delegation marketing quite carefully and I can't find any hint that I had anything to do with its being deleted. I'm not sure why it is you're apologizing to me, but it might be that you wanted to apologize to someone else who might be looking for that apology.

That being said, you need to read the material at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegation marketing. It wasn't just that your article was deleted in a "speedy" process for being obviously inappropriate, someone cranked up the full mechanism and put it through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process, asking for a consensus from the Wikipedia community. That means that there was nothing obviously inappropriate about it, but soneone felt it had a major flaw that isn't covered by the speedy processes and wanted to have it discussed by as many people as possible. The outcome was a consensus that it should be deleted, which was contributed to by six or seven people, and their reasons are listed under the link in the first sentence. The important part is, once an article is deleted by an AfD process, it is subject to immediate deletion if it gets recreated, which is what happened here. That rule overrides the suggestion you found that, if there's not an article under a specific title, you can write one. As it stands at the moment, Wikipedia doesn't want there to be an article under that title and will delete anything that shows up under that name.

If you truly believe there needs to be an article about Delegation marketing in Wikipedia, there is one further process you can undertake: it's found at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, let me warn you in advance, you want to be very well-informed and very well-prepared before you go in there. You need to rewrite the article offline and back it up with references and citations, because encyclopedia articles must be notable and [[W{:V|verifiable]]. You need to have lots of quotes from third-party sources attesting to the use of this phrase and its meaning. Remember, in general, what you think of the topic is not very important; it's what other people say about it that counts, and you have to quote as many experts as possible. (Bloggers, or people from your own company, or non-experts, don't count.) I think that was the problem the first time around; that, and the fact that you seem to have removed some tags without changing the text that was the reason for those tags to have been added.

I can't say that I will be your champion and take this article through deletion review for you, because I think that's a job for someone who really cares about the article's existence, but if you do re-write it with references, I'll be happy to look it over for you and give you some further advice. In the meantime, you might want to look over the basic principles of Wikipedia and learn more about how it works -- I think that might have contributed to this situation. I'm sorry your experience thus far has been frustrating and I hope you continue to contribute in the future in this or another area of expertise. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Seminar marketing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seminar marketing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seminar marketing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bjelleklang - talk 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)