Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influencer marketing

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influencer marketing

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

This article was written by User:Duncanwbrown, who, in my opinion has written the article as a plug for his book (which is given as a reference: I question the legitimacy of writing an article on a subject that you have written a book about, and then referencing your own book; that seems to be stretching the definition of reliable source somewhat.) As a result, the article, although long and well written (although its tone becomes unencyclopaedic more than once) can be summed up as original research, pure and simple. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forgive me for turning around your deletion rationale, but aren't you stretching the definition of original research somewhat? OR refers to unpublished facts or syntheses (emphasis mine). Yes, caution is to be exerted if an editor cites his own book. But first, there are numerous other refs in the article, and second, I would like to see an evaluation of the respectability of the publisher before having the book disqualified as a reliable source. (Even then, one could maybe check how much of the article could stay without citing this book). As for the implicit CoI accusation, don't we here have the rare case of a subject expert editing his expert topic? That's not necessarily bad, I daresay. --Pgallert (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In "On the Mall" from The White Album, Joan Didion wrote that "One thing you will note about shopping-center theory is that you could have thought of it yourself, and a course in it will go a long way toward dispelling the notion that business proceeds from mysteries too recondite for you and me." This seems to be yet another such Elk theory, with its now-traditional lists of arbitrary and tautological labels ---

Influencer Marketing, as increasingly practiced in a commercial context, comprises four main activities:
* Identifying influencers, and ranking them in order of importance.
* Marketing to influencers, to increase awareness of the firm within the influencer community
* Marketing through influencers, using influencers to increase market awareness of the firm amongst target markets
* Marketing with influencers, turning influencers into advocates of the firm.

and jargon-laden texts whose meaning is ultimately elusive:

Sources of influencers can be varied. Marketers traditionally target influencers that are easy to identify, such as press, industry analysts and high profile executives. For most B2C purchases, however, influencers might include people known to the purchaser and the retailer staff. In higher value B2B transactions the community of influencers may be wide and varied, and include consultants, government-backed regulators, financiers and user communities.

There is, of course, a fairly broad literature about theories of this kind. What distinguishes one author's from another's is not really substance, but only branding. The real problem is the lack of actual information, as opposed to tautology, hair-splitting, and logorrhea, in the texts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 08:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article clearly written to promote the book, but as previous commenter noted the concept is probably notable itself. Perhaps somebody who knows the material better could find an article to merge it with? --Ktlynch (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable marketing technique covered by numerous sources, as shown by the search links above. The rest is a matter of article editing using ordinary tools, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to word of mouth which seems to be the standard jargon -free term. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (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.