Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compensation methods
- 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Compensation methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced, mostly original research, and largely just repeats what is already sufficiently covered at Online advertising. How is "compensation methods" a valid encyclopedic topic, and why would such a topic be so limited to the online advertising industry? Having this as a (long) article doesn't make any sense at all. ZimZalaBim talk 04:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
delete all point raised by nominater are valid, in fact, its refrence section has a line with no source what so ever, and only one of the four refrences (one not being a real page) one is a advertisment, one is just a google search, and only one is a news site,, so delete or remake Im really bad at this (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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.