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 Speedily deleted. This article was stubbed to a single sentence by its initial author, from a 9K page. I take that as almost a page blanking; and the sentence left fails WP:CSD A1 - not enough context to figure what it was about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic campaign[edit]

Strategic campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Essay (see WP:OR) created by author (see WP:COI) to promote his book with website linked in article (see WP:SPAM). Declined speedy as spam (!!!). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related article: William Rogers, Persuasion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close Article is only a few hours old. An afd is innapropriate. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD. I fail to see how to other article is remotely linked to the main afd. Consider removing it to a seperate afd. The term itself is notable and often used [1][2][3][4][5][6] --neon white talk 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at all nothing unusual or inappropriate about nominating an article for AfD after a declined speedy (usually quite soon after an article is created). The use of the term "strategic campaign" as a phrase does not imply that this article is not OR and COI (and quite likely cut and pasted from the author's book). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The original author has reduced the original article down to one sentence, but it appears that it was a summary of his book, Persuasion: Messages, Receivers, and Contexts. Luckily, the world will little note nor long remember whether efforts to persuade us to keep this article failed. Mandsford (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm rather surprised to find this article still here given its present condition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Delicious Carbuncle and Malleus Fatuarum. With the author reducing the article to what it is now, and if he doesn't want to do anything else to it, there's no reason to keep it. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article as it stands meets speedy criteria for lack of context anyway. Related article is PROD'd at the moment but, if it came up here would be a delete as well.Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:04, 18 June 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.