Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growth Hacker 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 redirect to Ryan Holiday.  So Why  09:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Growth Hacker Marketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The question is notability, in particular WP:NBOOK. To be honest I have seen worse survive AfD, but upon checking I see that NBOOK#1 specifically excludes publications where the author (...) advertise[s] or speak[s] about the book, under which quite a few of the refs fall (e.g. two Forbes sources are interviews with the author), and many other smell of copy-pasted press releases. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NBOOK guideline #1 specifically stipulates that it has to have been the subject of two or more published works. This book meets that requirement. Bobhambrick (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * links please. (Genuinely asking, because I couldn't find them in the refs or online) Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are a handful that mention the book:
 * https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253165
 * https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/281422
 * https://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/marketing-guru-ryan-holiday-answers-your-growth-hacking-questions/#.tnw_6vjR7NaP
 * https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/the-real-engines-of-growth-on-the-internet/
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/laura-inamedinova/2016/08/07/20-growth-hacking-strategists-that-you-must-follow-in-2016/#1c3aa44d5092
 * Another piece the notability puzzle is that this book seems to be (or have been) the subject of instruction at several colleges and universities, which is specifically stipulated in NBOOK#4
 * Universtity of Kent
 * Syracuse University
 * Westchester Community College
 * Carnegie Mellon University
 * Northeastern University


 * Some good points have been mentioned about references on the page which can be corrected, but the book does qualify as notable. Keep. Bobhambrick (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the links:, , , : passing mentions (not even a full paragraph discussing the book). is not an independent source (cf. nomination).
 * For NBOOK #4, I think it fails the footnote which says This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves (...) (emphasis added). IIRC it was meant to refer to works such as King Lear or Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The book in question is not written specifically for academic curriculum and yet it is studied in the classroom, so while not remotely as notable as the texts you provide as examples it does still make it notable as a subject of instruction. Bobhambrick (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is what "subject of study" means. I would think it is intended in a meta-analysis sense (i.e. how was the book relevant to a current of thought, what impact did it have at the time of publishing or later on its subject or on its author's notoriety, etc.), otherwise I don't really see the point of excluding textbooks but including books that end up being used as textbooks. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a note at the talk page for NBOOK, in the hope it will bring more help. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, one of my first ports of call when looking at an afd' book article is Worldcat for an indication of possible notableness (librarians are pretty good at ensuring their collections contain relevant/notable books, just don't get me started on those that cull their collections .... NNNNOOOOOO!!!!!), looking here it is held by around 200 libararies which isn't too bad, then googling the title and "book reviews" and looking at a couple of regional libaray sites, surprisingly there doesn't appear to be (m)any useable reviews out there for this book (im not comfortable with the reviews that presently appear in the "Reception" section), even the dreaded:)) trade reviewers like PW and Kirkus Reviews haven't reviewed it (they do have reviews of some of Holiday's other books), so im leaning towards a delete or a redirect to author, at this time. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or redirect/merge?
 * Redirect to Ryan_Holiday; everything can be covered there. The article appears to serve only to promote the book; the "Reception" section is the smallest one. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  12:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment For the record, I agree redirecting to Ryan Holiday is better than outright deletion. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to author section per above; cover & expand summary style. NBOOKS is supposed to be an indicator that extensive sources exist somewhere for us to write an article that does justice to the topic. I too only see passing mentions in the above and thus very little content with which we can write an article, nevertheless do any such justice. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  17:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.