Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student marketing
=[[Student marketing]]=
:{{la|Student marketing}} – (
:({{Find sources|Student marketing}})
Dictionary definition: student marketing is marketing aimed at students. Contains some purported facts about US and UK students, but none of them are sourced, so I suspect a fair bit of OR as well. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. As the nominator points out, the article defines "student marketing" as marketing products to students in higher education. It cites no sources, claims no particular notability for student marketing as a distinct form or practice, and doesn't add in a substantive way to the coverage at the existing articles. Cnilep (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The nominated article is not great but could serve as a starting point: it read a little like somebody's essay, and I'm not convinced this is the best title. However, college/university students as a target for advertising is a legitimate topic in the business press and academic research. I added a few refs to articles from business media: there's no shortage of material if you google, though you have to skip other topics like advertising of universities, students of marketing/advertising, advertising to school children etc. There's also a lot of academic research on the effects of and attitudes to advertising on students[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673210#.UkLG8D8tpOI][http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjsarp.2002.40.1$002fjsarp.2002.40.1.1186$002fjsarp.2002.40.1.1186.xml;jsessionid=5429C01487FADD746043AD3BC253453E][http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00913367.1980.10673316#.UkLGvD8tpOI][http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1974-27601-001][http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J026v17n02_03#.UkLHAT8tpOI][http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/10303935/reload=0;jsessionid=AkqzJQjLwKLIdEtJKjLC.14][http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=179604]: although this is partly because students are an easy population for academic researchers to study, there is still considerable interest by marketing researchers in students as a distinctive population. The nomination and above "delete" comment seem based purely on the article, rather than showing evidence of additional research into the notability of the topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- :Yes, the nomination is based on the poor quality of the article, not the topic. I have no doubt about the notability of student marketing per se, but I do think that, when all the unsourced (and undated!) information is removed from the article, a dictionary definition remains and any attempt at a new article would have to start from scratch. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2013 (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.