Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter marketing

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 Social media marketing. While there are more keep !votes than anything else, it makes little sense to have an article with essentially zero content which is already covered somewhere else (hence, redirect). If anyone wants to expand the article with some actual content, go ahead, as pointed out, it is a valid topic. Tone 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter marketing

[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)

Completely vacuous stub; no evidence it is likely to turn into an article Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for one thing, the article already has 8 sources that are clearly on the subject. Twitter, of course, has its own meta-marketing page on the subject, not to mention "tweets". There appears from a Google search to be any number of consultants and specialists who offer their services in the subject, too. We may not think the subject lovely, but it's certainly there, and as they used to say in Yorkshire, "where there's t'mook there's t'brass". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking they are not sources for the (nonexistent) information in the "article", they are just the result of a search for "book Twitter marketing". Probably there are books written on "Marketing on Twitter for the financial industry", or "Marketing on Twitter for Chinese speakers"... but notability is not inherited. This kind of check is obviously valid for a person, to confirm that they are written about, but not for an obvious combination of already-known terms. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the "sources" are self-published, not WP:RS. So I am deleting those by not-really-publishers. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing more can be said in that article or in its newly created sibling Facebook marketing that isn't better explained in the more general article Online marketing. Various books on "Use [large platform] for [activity]" exist where both [large platform] and [activity] are notable, but that's not a guarantee it can be a standalone article. If Wikipedia were a guide it could be expanded. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obviously notable topic with a tremendous impact. Entire books have been written on the specific topic of Twitter marketing, some of which are already in the article, such as Twitter Marketing For Dummies. Some of these books are mostly howto, but nonetheless have some history and do compare and contrast different marketing techniques, allowing for a summary description. A quick WP:BEFORE style search yields articles on the history of Twitter marketing campaigns, such as Brand Twitter Grows Up and The Evolution Of Advertising On Twitter, And What Comes Next and case studies such as A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter. The article is a new stub, just a week old, and with all the sources out there, has the WP:POTENTIAL to be developed into a reasonable article. A notable topic, with reliable sources discussing history and impact, and an article with surmountable problems, suggests a keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 06:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media marketing. Nothing unique to Twitter. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that there is nothing to merge. (So perhaps redirect?) The "content" is an explanation that "Twitter marketing" means marketing using Twitter, and a list of generic keywords. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Twitter marketing merits its own stand alone article since it involves mechanisms that are unique to Twitter's platform; an example being Wendy's use of Twitter to promote its brand by awarding a user who had the most retweets with a year's worth of free chicken nuggets. Even Wendy's digital marketing officer singles out Twitter as a "star player". Not to mention the vast demographic differences between Twitter and other social media platforms such as Facebook (the latter's demographics tend to be older, for instance) means that there are tangible deviations in marketing strategies on Twitter that deserve to be explored. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 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.