Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spamvertising

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 Spamming. As noted in the discussion the article is completely unsourced after 14 years. That's a WP:V fail and V is policy trumping any notability guidelines. With no references there is nothing to merge. All of which said, it is a viable search term and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spamvertising

[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)

Unreferenced essay. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spamming. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I received notification that this article was being proposed for deletion, and upon reviewing its history, I can see that I started the article in Wikipedia back in 2004, although I don't remember it. I lean slightly against deleting it now. Although I can see it still lacks references, a Google search for the term yields 17,000 results, a number of which are are legitimate news or information articles. For example, the SORBS spam blacklist uses the term in an article on "Basic Spamfighting." I think the fact that the article has existed for 15 years without a previous proposal for deletion also suggests that it is worth keeping. However, I don't feel strongly about this. If the article is not going to be kept, though, I think it should at least redirect to Spamming. Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spamming - There are no current references in the article, and doing searches does bring up some results, but nothing that goes particularly in depth or much beyond a definition. In fact, most of the top results are just mirrors/copies of this very article. That said, as the term is a legit term, a Redirect to Spamming makes sense. Some slight merging or mentioning of the term in the target article can also be done if seen as appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My university library has several articles that address the topic in a non-trivial way: "Real IT and fake accounts" by Gibbs, Mark, Network World, Nov 1, 2004, Vol.21(44), p.70; "Economics of Spam", Beijing Review, Jul 1, 2004, Vol.47(26); "Even science would benefit from auctions", CACM Staff, Communications of the ACM, 01 November 2008, Vol.51(11), pp.8-9 (peer reviewed); "SPAM PHISHING CASES FALL", Info - Prod Research (Middle East), Jun 25, 2008; HONG KONG: SPAM PHISHING CASES FALL, IPR Strategic Business Information Database, June 25, 2008; "Comcast Class A: Operation Safety net Helps Business And Government Leaders Understand Global Online Security Best Practices", News Bites US - NASDAQ, Jun 10, 2015. In addition the subject gets 26 hit on Google scholar (see here).4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is Spamvertising different from spamming?Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references after 14 years??? I did some searching on my own and found nothing that looks like a reliable secondary source. Do not merge; with no references, this fails WP:V, and thus can't be merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 6 October 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.