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.

Economipedia

@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]

Improvements

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]

Proposed deletion - Notability

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]