- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Centres of influence
- Centres of influence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Volunteer1234 ( talk) 10:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep A search indicates that this phrase is fairly well established, although this article doesn't do a great job at demonstrating it. I added a couple of sources to remove the one specific CN tag. I would however change the primary name to "Circles of Influence", and have Centres be the redirect to that - it's a much more active phrase Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. Otr500 ( talk) 03:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Targeted Response @ Otr500: regarding "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - only the first line is sole definition, which is standard form. The second part regards things to bear in mind about usage, and the latter considerations about those being included. Regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE it doesn't seem to violate any of the standard given variations. General Notability (more specifically, lacking it) would seem the primary grounds to reject this, and I feel it avoids that, just. [p.s. wasn't sure of correct procedure to provide an AfD response severed from comment with a relist - apologies if incorrect] Nosebagbear ( talk) 08:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Reply: Good response to me. The lead states "marketing term" and the article has no distict direction so is vague. It uses wording like "key people within a businesses", "professional advisers of customers". Except to some "specialist" or someone "in the know" this "term" would have no actual meaning and I still don't know what it "actually means" even after reading the article. Try reading the article as a member of the general reader world. Otr500 ( talk) 09:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I think the "not a dictionary" argument is valid. The rest of the thin, poorly written article is a marketing advice, which is also something that wikipedia is not WP:NOTADVICE. I did try to copy edit the article but there isn't anything there to save. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 04:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. There might some notoriety for the term, but if this page and the lack of web articles cited is any indication, it's not a full encyclopedia entry's worth of content or cultural significance. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.
- 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.