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 to Brand relationship#Brand intimacy. A number of the editors participating in the AfD discussion have expressed concern about unsourced and /or promotional content. Care should be taken by those undertaking the merge to only keep material that is verifiable and NPOV. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brand intimacy[edit]

Brand intimacy (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)

This article, from its first incarnation through the three edits made in the last hour by Georgefowlerbrady, has been engineered to be an advertisement for a model by a marketing agency, MBLM (which uses the tagline "The Brand Intimacy Agency"), and its representative, Mario Natarelli. Nearly all the sources and external links lead to them: the whole article is WP:LINKSPAM and WP:REFSPAM. To the extent there is an objective concept one might call "brand intimacy" underneath all of this, I don't see a good way to weed it out from all the WP:UNDUE weight on this one company's pitch, and I tried to neutralize it at least a bit but to no avail as other editors, seemingly intent on making the article serve as a come-on for that company, keep building the article into a white paper for the company, so I'm suggesting WP:TNT. The only reason I'm not just throwing G11 speedy deletion at it is that it's been through several rounds of edits and it manages to avoid advertising MBLM and Natarelli directly, even though that's the clear effect. Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into brand_relationship#Brand_intimacy which is the same topic. There's a lot of this stuff about including brand love, brand loyalty, brand awareness, &c. There's a fair amount of variation in the terminology, depending on the authors, and others have defined band intimacy differently to mean detailed knowledge, rather than the type of emotion, When a customer has extremely detailed knowledge of, and a close association with, a brand it's called brand intimacy. So, I reckon it's best to push this marketing stuff together to help establish a consensus about the terminology. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to brand_relationship#Brand_intimacy per commenter above. I also think we need to delete all REFSPAM here regardless. Skirts89 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as baldly promotional marketing dreck. --Lockley (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Discard all unsourced and blatantly WP:OR text and Merge what can be rescued into the section of the article about brand relationships. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this college power point presentation. No need to merge it. Trillfendi (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to brand_relationship#Brand_intimacy, as the quality of material is not high enough to be worth merging. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:14, 25 January 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.