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 keep. Article needs work, mer MezzoMezzo. Keeper | 76 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable advertising[edit]

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

No sources that actually discuss topic, only tangential WP:OR. Seems to have been used exclusively as a platform for different companies to promote themselves. Examples of topic given are too similar to what's covered in Green PR to warrant a different article. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Just a comment: I believe that this article is not similar enough to Green PR to say that two articles are not warranted. Green PR refers to advertising about the particular company's efforts in the "Green movement". On the other hand, this article refers to advertising in a way that the advertising itself is environmentally friendly. One is referring to a particular content trend in advertisement while the other is referring to a "Green" method of advertisement. These might sound similar, but I believe when you think about it they are two very different things. However, I am going with neutral on this one because I believe the article does need cleanup so as to not just be a repository of "look at how good this company is" type content and I'm not sure if that's doable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 09:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. My reasoning is that most of the sources I have been able to find using the term 'sustainable advertising', (and variations I could think of) have been discussing either Green PR, or just as often Greenwashing, which is also related, but different. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. This seems like a difficult case. Obviously, it is different enough from Green PR and Greenwashing to make merging inappropriate. Even if, theoretically, this subject is notable (not claiming that it is), the article itself would need a lot of work. Would anybody be willing to see if we can work with a defined period of time, say two weeks, by which there will be a second AfD discussion? The lack of interest (and hence lack of consensus) could be alleviated by spending time on the article; after that, it might be easier to say definitely whether the subject is truly notable or not. Any thoughts? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a reasonable topic, and has some good sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kitfoxxe. Several of the article's links appear to be out of date, and there is substantial room for further development, but it should be further developed, not deleted. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2013 (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.