Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing with meaning
I disagree with the nominators rationale; being 'convered only in specialist media' has never been a deletion criteria, neither has 'only a definition' (especially when it is obviously much more). However, just finding something on Google does not establish notability either, because only |reliable sources can establish notability. The problem with 'marketing with meaning', is that it would presumably be used often as just part of a sentence. I did a search for the term on ProQuest, that searches pretty much what is available of academic journals within business and marketing, and it gave two hits. Both were news (not academic journal hits); the one used the the term as a casual phrase (albeight in the title, but completly unrelated to the subject at hand), while the other was an interview with the owner of the blog site with the same name. It seems that most of the Google hits also are references to this blog site (which would have to establish notability independent of the subject on hand). Reading the article, there is little that makes sence; though the article is not directly untrue, it seems to be mixing parts here and there, and there are non-coherences between sections. I interpret 'marketing with meaning' as a attempt to make a buzzword. It is impossible to access the sources, since they have restricted access. It all seems very  to me. In the business word, buzzterms like these are twenty a dozen, and until they are established by reliable academic resarch, fail to be notable
— User:Arsenikk, 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)