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. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webmarketer[edit]

Declined PROD; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dictionary like content. It's not a dictionary. Marlith (Talk) 04:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, more time is necessary , it is no longer a dictionary definition. It is greatly improved with meritorical and reliable/sourced content. This article has only 5 days now.

If you still have some objections to this article , please denote them more precisely !!!!! and set another 5 day trial , so the authors / editors have a reasonable amount of time for further improvements and dealing with a problems that You've announced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monikapelc (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is expanded beyond a dictionary definition at this point. The term seems to be in widespread usage as well based on a google search. I am not positive that it should remain, as it seems to be a neologism, but the widespread usage pushes me to keep the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Internet marketing, where the concept is already covered in more detail. Rklear (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete – See Below The author does make a good point here. The article was created at 22:48 and proposed for deletion at 22:51 than AFD a few days later. Now that is efficiency. However, on to why we should keep. First, there is enough media coverage, as provided by Google News and shown here [1]] to establish that the term is Notable enough to meet the inclusion guidelines. Likewise, there is enough scholarly work, as shown by Google Scholar, and provided here [2] that the article can be expanded upon. May it need a rewrite, yes! However, that is not a condition for deletion. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnews search you cited was for "Web marketer". An equivalent search for "webmarketer", the neologism that is the heart of this article, turns up exactly 7 hits. And, to reiterate, Web marketing already redirects to Internet marketing. I don't see what is gained by a redundant article. Rklear (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for pointing out the redirect. I totaly overlooked it. Changed opinion to delete per Rklear argument. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zeal to remove buzzwords, buzzword-wannabes, and marketing gibberish from Wikipedia is no vice. The instant article adds nothing that could not be added to our already existing article on internet marketing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the reference used for the definition states "an alternate term for Internet marketer". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (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.