Deletion of Creative strategies in advertising

Comment: Is this article based on the book ''Creative Strategies in Advertising'' by Drewniany and Jewlerhttp://www.amazon.com/Creative-Strategy-in-Advertising-ebook/dp/B00B7JUXSC? If so, it might be possible to convert it into an article on the book, by adding reviews. This classification is found in a small number of other books, e.g.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6yh6abc1mxEC&lpg=PA99&ots=9VYUMjCWI_&dq=%22mid-strength%20strategies%22%20advertising&pg=PA99#v=onepage&q=%22mid-strength%20strategies%22%20advertising&f=false but I'm not sure it's notable. The references section is implausible: what does the second reference have to do with advertising? To continue the criticism, the article represents a POV about what is good and bad advertising, and confuses advertising and the wider sphere of marketing, product development, brand development, etc - but these are not necessarily reasons for deletion (I don't think it's  because it's copied from somewhere else). If someone can demonstrate that the classification itself is widely used, or discussed in a well-known book, then it might be kept. But even then, it would be necessary to have third-party sources that assess the strength and weakness of this theory of advertising
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: or '''redirect''' - a combination of |original research and |how-to guide. I fear it simply isn't an encyclopaedic topic in its current form or with its current title. As a ''concept'', it's not clear how it would be considered |notable. A particular theory encompassing these ideas might be if it has received significant coverage, but this is a struggle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTHOWTO||WP:N)