Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Enterprise marketing management. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing operations management

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing this per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3. The previous AfD was speedy closed, but per DRV this is being relisted. My listing here is purely administrative; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As nom. of previously terminated AfD transferring nomination statement from that AfD as a !vote delete to balance neutral nom. above as result of DRV: Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that the community seems to indicate it does not wish to accommodate. Sourcing is poor to non-existent which leads to WP:POV, WP:NOTESSAY and other concerns though that is not to say the sourcing is not fixable.. The article bundled at the previous AfD is now proceeding independently at AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Enterprise marketing management, of which it a part. Like marketing resource management (MRM), marketing operations management, I think more commonly called marketing operations, is a part of the larger topic of enterprise marketing management (EMM), and so a merge there is a natural alternative to deletion. As noted in its AFD, with books devoted to it, EMM looks notable, so that article should be sticking around. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My delete !vote above stands both for merge and redirect, but for merge I would caution due to poor sourcing at or soon after article creation there is perhaps some risk, albeit unproven, of a copy violation from some source X (that others may have copied from also) so may I humbly suggest peoples propose redirect (with suitable sourced target preparation) in preference to merge in this instance unless having a great desire to merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a risk of copyvio in WP articles. If you have good evidence of a copyvio, please put it forward, so that we can delete the offending content. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such evidence. If I obtain such evidence I may present it. However the risk here may be high. (review the DRV). I'd merely suggest given the current state of sourcing (The existing reference is about MPM, and the source recovered from 2005 possibly does not cover that much, it may seem more prudent to re-write content from sources on the target rather than WP:COPYMERGE and a problem emerging later. But its anyone's choice whether to suggest a merge or a redirect. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enterprise marketing management. Poor sourcing fails WP:V, may not be content which can be merged. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT With no votes supporting keep, why was this relisted? Sufficient arguments were provided for Merge/Redirect and Delete. There is a clear consensus against keeping this. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:30, 21 April 2019 (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.