Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game-based 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 Merge and redirect as there's consensus there's nothing confidently keeping this as its own article, including with the needed improvements, therefore, whatever is needed to merge if at all is available at the history logs; there have been no other comments suggesting otherwise (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Game-based marketing

Game-based marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Topic is not independently notable from Advertising in video games, In-game advertising, and gamification—doesn't cover any area that isn't already in the scope of those three articles czar 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Czar,

Please note the differnce between the terms 'advertising' and 'marketing'. Advertising stands for promotion and Marketing stands includes everything including 'promotion, selling etc.,'. That is the main point of difference which is not noted in In-game advertising and Advertising in video games. Let me know if you have any issues... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tsnarendran14, the question is whether the scope is significantly different. Based on the current sourcing, they're not. So either the existing article's scope should be expanded to all forms of marketing or the existing article—even if it just has "advertising" in its title—just subsumes the content within the new article anyway. czar 16:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Czar, those articles are mentioning purchase which is wrong! Purchase should never be mentioned in those articles..instead those articles should mention more about promotions. You can go through this book http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470562234.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That book's contents fit into the scope of existing articles (the three mentioned in the nomination). "Game-based marketing", per the title of this book, is a neologism—our other articles already cover its topics. czar 18:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

But, there is no term called 'game-based marketing' in those articles. Those articles might mislead the readers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Czar, Could you please give a update on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I am also working on adding additional content, but I need few more days to include those contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This term is widely used nowadays in marketing and it will helpful for readers if they find it in wiki. In future experts can add in more content to this article, considering this is only a start. It is not neologism by the author. This term should have been included in wikipedia very long time back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you think the term is important, you can redirect it to where it is covered in an existing article. The issue I raised is that this scope overlaps with several other articles without having sources that establish it as a separate topic. Either one of the existing titles should change to "game-based marketing" or this concept should be included within an existing article. czar 20:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Then the term in-game advertising should come under game-based marketing, since in-game 'advertising' is a sub topic of game-based marketing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a valid article. This article is not covered anywhere else in wiki. In-game advertising is different from that game-based marketing and we should not redirect it to anywhere else... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudiptaDhar (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect - In as much as there exists any difference between "marketing" and "advertising" can be discussed in a single article. I suspect In-game advertising will be suitable. Remove the overlap, discuss the differences in the right place. Consolidate. Only split off into a sub article if there is too much information in a section, which I do not believe will be an issue. But regardless, there's no need to delete anything here. Fieari (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I will do it. I will add some differences and merge these two articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge: I'll support a merge here, but mostly wanted to point out that Tsnarendran14 and SudiptaDhar have been identified as sock puppets by a CU. Waggie (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to In-game advertising; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (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.