Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R-commerce (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Relationship marketing. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R-commerce

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

Neologism. I put this up for AfD last time and was closed because someone tagged it with G11 and it was deleted. Now it has been recreated. Don't tag it please, or else it will just get recreated. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I speedied this last time out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I did a quick search, and R-commerce shows up in a few credible places:

A full chapter in Advanced Selling for Dummies Publisher: Wiley (legitimate)
A full chapter in 49 Marketing Secrets That Work to Grow Sales Publisher: Morgan James (quasi-vanity publisher?)
definition/article on Techopedia

R-commerce appears to be a minor buzzword of doubtful notability. The writing in the article is currently poor, but it seems like an attempt to summarize the main writings about the concept, not an attempt to promote a specific author. On the other hand, from my brief look at the sources, there doesn't seem to be much substance to the concept. Its leading advocate says (on http://www.earlytorise.com/marketing-lessons-from-politics/, a blacklisted page) that it's a synonym for Relationship marketing, so it might be most useful to readers to just redirect to that article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect option sounds good, keeping the placeholder in case it becomes more widely used. I do not think "Techopedia" is the best source either! Not sure a poison is needed (yet) unless someone is trying to sell their web site or book etc. W Nowicki (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems the best option for this neologism until it gets picked up in academia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 2 June 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.