Wikipedia:Marketing buzzspeak
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Do not use marketing buzzspeak in Wikipedia. |
Marketing buzzspeak is a set of communication methods intended to persuade, convince, sell, or dazzle without actually conveying additional meaning. This exists in the business world, and in contexts beyond the business world such as academia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is written from a neutral point of view, and should not contain marketing buzzspeak.
Examples
[edit]Business world
[edit]Referring to someone as a "thought leader", an "influencer", or a "trend-setter", or to a person, company, or product as "cutting edge" are examples of marketing buzzspeak. These phrases do not add any encyclopedic content. If a reviewer or critic has said these things, it is just empty praise. The preferred Wikipedia term, such as "internet celebrity" for "influencer", presents the meaning more clearly in cases where the word is accepted as well-defined, but preferably avoided.
Indicating someone or something as "award-winning" is, in itself, also meaningless. Simply list the awards with references. Awards may be meaningful or not. Anyone can create an award and give it to themselves, and some industries have large numbers of vanity awards as advertising for themselves, book publishing and distilled spirits being notable examples. An award is only significant if Wikipedia has an article about the award, and then the award should be specifically reported with a reliable source.
Academia
[edit]While methodology, the study of methods, is a field of study, the word "methodology" is often mis-used to make the "method" of a scientific analysis sound more sophisticated.
Cleanup
[edit]Pages that contain marketing buzzspeak often do not contain any useful encyclopedic content, and, if not, they should be tagged for speedy deletion as advertising. If there is some signal in the marketing noise, judgment needs to be used as to whether a page can be salvaged, but usually it is not worth trying to salvage it, and it is better to blow it up and start over. A page that may be salvageable and is in article space can be moved to draft space, but often pages that contain marketing buzzspeak should be deleted from article space or even deleted from draft space.
If a page that consists mostly of marketing buzzspeak is repeatedly re-created, the title may need to be salted, that is, protected from recreation.
Cleanup of draft
[edit]If a draft contains marketing buzzspeak, it may be declined, or rejected, or tagged for speedy deletion. If it is declined, do not waste your time and that of the reviewers by asking them which portions contain marketing buzzspeak so that you can remove them. That is asking the reviewer to write your article for you, and is usually an indicator that you are a conflict of interest editor. Declare your conflict of interest, and try to rework the draft neutrally yourself.
Marketing buzzspeak and artificial intelligence
[edit]Some essays and papers written by large language models contain marketing buzzspeak, and sometimes articles or Wikipedia essays that contain marketing buzzspeak are thought to be written by large language models. Marketing buzzspeak has been around for centuries before the invention of large language models, and it is not important whether a page that has been nominated for deletion is the product of a large language model. If the page consists mostly of marketing buzzspeak, that is reason enough to delete it, regardless of whether its author was a human or a computer program.
A word of advice is in order to any author whose page has been nominated for deletion because it is thought to have been written by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. If other humans suspect that your work is that of a computer, you should review or change your writing style.