Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The outcome is the same as in Articles for deletion/Circle (company). I suggest that the question of whether to systematically delete articles that appear to have been created for promotional purposes should be discussed at the policy level, because opinions in today's AfDs about such topics are divided, at least where the topics would otherwise be notable.  Sandstein  08:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Twitter Power
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Closed as keep in 2009. I would have !voted keep then also, but I think we understand much better now the dangers of promotionalism. This is part of a promotional ring of articles created by a SPA. That's as good a reason for deletion as lack of notability--or perhaps even better. See the adjacent afds also.  DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: Joel Comm's book, "Twitter Power," explains how and why Twitter has grown as popular as it has. But more importantly, he provides simple steps to help you sign up for a Twitter account and create your profile. For people already using Twitter, this book is also useful as Comm reveals how you should be tweeting and building your following. "Twitter Power" is most beneficial for people who are tweeting for business, whether it's to sell a product or drive people to a Web site. If you're on Twitter to follow your favorite celebrities, catch up with your friends and discover an interesting blog or two, this book will go beyond where you need to go. You would be better off reading a few online articles about how to use it. One of the best chapters in the book for beginning and advanced Tweeters is "The Art of the Tweet." ... ...  "Twitter Power" is an easy read for a book about technology and social marketing. Comm is personable, and he is writing from experience. If you purchase a copy of this book, it may come with a free ticket to his four-week, online social media workshop and 10 percent of his proceeds go to the charity, Water is Life. Since Twitter is always evolving, a second edition of this book is due out in April, according to the publisher.   The article notes: "I know business owners out there are being told about Twitter's capabilities and its relevance to their hoped-for customers. And as I'm thinking about the real value for our time-strapped readers, what should land on my desk but Twitter Power: How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time, Joel Comm's ode to the haiku of blogging. Comm says business owners are missing out on huge opportunities by not taking advantage of the marketing possibilities Twitter offers. After all, Starbucks, Apple, Whole Foods and other large companies are implementing tweet strategies--why wouldn't you? Well, lack of knowledge on the topic is probably a common answer. Which is likely why Comm dedicated 232 pages to a medium that allows 140 characters. He lays out the basics of social networking and Twitter and how to build a following on Twitter and using Twitter for team communication. Chapter 5 is 'The Art of the Tweet,' which lays out etiquette, how to be interesting on Twitter and how to join a conversation, among other things. 'Good content on Twitter needs to be entertaining. It needs to be informative. It needs to be valuable. And it needs to be short.' So reads a passage from 'The Art of the Tweet' chapter."   The article notes: "In his new book Twitter Power, American online marketing expert Joel Comm describes social media as 'content that has been created by its audience' and likens Twitter to a giant virtual water cooler, 'where people come to get to know each other, to make friends, to network and, most importantly, to converse'. Such chatter can be used. As Comm notes, 'Plenty of smart companies are using [Twitter to build a brand, turn their customers into a community and cement the name of their products in the minds of their market.' The subtitle of Comm's book is How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time."  The article notes: "Curious to learn more, I recently picked up Joel Comm's new book, 'Twitter Power: How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time.' Comm is a self-described 'social media expert.' And his book, as you might guess, teaches you how to use Twitter to market a business. Twitter allows you to write updates about yourself of no more than 140 characters. These 'tweets' go out to everyone who is following you on the site. In turn, you see the tweets of everyone you're following. You can read these tweets either at twitter.com or on a mobile phone. Many people on Twitter just follow a few close friends so they can keep one another up to date on their lives. But Comm shows how you can use the site to connect with potential customers. Among the topics he covers are designing an effective Twitter site, how to increase the number of followers you have and how to best tweet."  Barbara Jo is an assistant professor at Western Carolina University's College of Business. In addition to being published on Western Carolina University's College of Business website, this article was published on the Asheville Citizen-Times's website: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090816/BUSINESS/908160305/1044/COLUMNISTSWebCite. </li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "Joel Comm’s Twitter Power— How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time, thankfully, is a much better read on cyberspace that somewhat helped overcome Cyburbia. Comm’s book is a comprehensive guide for beginners to that thing everyone is talking about: Twitter. The book’s tag line might lead you to think it is targeted at marketing types looking to push their brands. In fact, it is a very accessible guide to personal Twitter usage as well. Skip Comm’s musings on social media and go straight to Chapter 3: “Getting Started the Right Way on Twitter”. The three following chapters concisely outline everything a novice needs to know to sign up on the micro-blogging service, build an attractive profile and then nurture a set of followers. Comm’s advice is free of jargon and effective. And best of all, he writes with a jocular simplicity that makes you want to play along. The remainder of the book is targeted at corporate users, but still stays simple and jargon-free."</li> <li> The article notes: "Twitter Power: How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time written by Joel Comm is the first book devoted exclusively to harnessing the power of Twitter, the online micro-blog that allows users to broadcast their status to followers in 140 characters or less, for business. This book is designed to help businesses make instant benefits from leveraging this social media phenomenon to reach consumers directly, build a brand, and increase sales. The author teaches marketers how to integrate Twitter into existing marketing strategies to build a loyal following among Twitter members, expand awareness for their product or service, and even handle negative publicity due to angry or disappointed consumers."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Twitter Power to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Deletion is not cleanup and Editing policy. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The book has received reviews in the American publications CNET, January Magazine, The News-Gazette, Asheville Citizen-Times, and Entrepreneur. It has received reviews in the Indian newspaper Mint and the Korean newspaper The Korea Times. It clearly passes Notability (books), which says: "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." Cunard (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the article with the sources I have listed here. Special thanks to who provided multiple strong sources about the book at Articles for deletion/Twitter Power. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom / those same arguments at the related AfD. Widefox ; talk 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, following thorough rewrite by User:Cunard. While notability should not trump avoidance of promotionalism to the point where blatantly promotional text and/or biased use of sources is allowed to remain around indefinitely just because there is no editor currently both willing and able to edit an article to an acceptable standard, the preferred outcome (at least where there is a willing volunteer) should always be to be left with a non-promotional article that meets Wikipedia's notability (and other) standards. Insisting on deletion rather than sufficient improvement either requires that no future article be created on the subject, no matter how notable, or simply postpones the problem - creation of a new article on the topic still requires a willing and competent volunteer and, unless the new creator is a known editor in good standing, must even then be open to an initial suspicion that the people responsible for the deleted article have just gone and acquired a more competent paid editor. No point in adding complications to a problem when, as in this case, we already have a solution. PWilkinson (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As detailed in the other AfDs, (I suspect) the long-term problem is with BOGOF editing. I don't have an complete solution, but time-limited salting deleted promo articles maybe. Widefox ; talk 19:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Widefox, "BOGOF editing" isn't obvious to me what that means. Maybe you could write an essay :) -- Green  C  20:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll put an essay up soon. Until then, see User talk:Cunard (+ Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Twitter Power (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 12 ).  Widefox ; talk 19:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per our current notability guidelines. I'm sympathetic to the nominator's concerns and would like to see flagellant cases of promotional activity like this handled somehow. Unclear AfD is the right tool. I have some ideas, others do also. Would like to see some things tried out. -- Green  C  21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another article in the series of artspam for Joel Comm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I have also read the discussion here, but in the end, the fact remains that this book seems notable. That it was started as a promotional paid-for article doesn't matter to me - focus on content, not the creator. And I will note that I do agree with User:DGG's and User:Kudpung's view that it is a waste of time / naivetee / helping the greedy spammers to improve such articles. Still, User:Cunard has done so, and on one level this is good (we have an entry on a notable topic). While it can be argued one could spend their time improving articles which are not helping spammers build a portfolio, this is mostly irrelevant. First, because if the topic is notable, it just is. Second, if someone is enjoying editing / rewriting such topics, it's their choice, it is a free wiki world, after all, and I do not feel we should judge the choices of others what to improve. Whatever I think of the topic here, I thank Cunard for improving this - case closed for me here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems that this proliferation of articles all about the same marginally notable topic should be gathered into one article written by someone other than Cunard, who, no matter how independent he or she may be, still seems to have a tough time writing an NPOV article that complies with Wikipedia guidelines on promotionalism. See comments in this and other Afds on this date. --Bejnar (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your accusation that I've written a promotional article and violated NPOV is vague but hurtful. I've striven for NPOV in Twitter Power by including all points of view from the reliable sources about the subject. Here is the second paragraph of the lead: "Published by by John Wiley & Sons, the book generally received positive reviews for its simplicity and lack of jargon. It was criticized by a CNET reviewer for giving readers 'a phony formula where you just paint by the numbers' to attempt to ensnare Twitter followers as customers." I was able to find five reviews of the book. Four were positive; one was negative. I gave the negative review plenty of weight in the "Reception" section: "In CNET article titled 'Twitter power? For real?', journalist Charles Cooper criticized the book for providing a 'phony formula where you just paint by the numbers'. He said the book is 'devoted to doling out tips on how to game the system to reel in 'loyal customers and more sales overall''. Cooper found Twitter Power contradictory because it says that Twitter is 'not a place where people come to sell—and pushing sales hard on Twitter just isn't going to work', but almost immediately after says that following people on Twitter could get them to become customers." I believe this presentation is mostly compliant with Neutral point of view though I erred on the side of giving more prominence and weight to the single negative review over the four positive reviews. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep None the less, this book is pretty famous, so it is natural that you should keep it. I am currently doing some clean up work for the article, to remove any biased or non-neutral point of view text. FiendYT (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not appear to meet notability criteria. Initially I might have said WP:TOOSOON, but this book is almost 10 years old at this point. For a notable book there should be much more coverage after even 5 years, let alone almost 10.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability (books) says (my bolding): "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." The book has received reviews in the American publications CNET, January Magazine, The News-Gazette, Asheville Citizen-Times, and Entrepreneur. It has received reviews in the Indian newspaper Mint and the Korean newspaper The Korea Times. The seven sources here far exceeds the "two sources" requirement in Notability (books). Cunard (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as promotional. I agree 100% with the BOGOF analysis above.  However, we can also look at this in a different way.  Wikipedia has, for a long time, understood the dangers of WP:Systemic bias.  There exists some population, T, (forgive me if I lapse into techno-jargon here) of possible topics to write articles on.  We've known for a long time that certain classes of topics are under-represented in the encyclopedia because information about them is not freely available on-line, or because the people who are interested in writing about those topics (for example, women) make up a minority of our editors, or because the sources for those topics are not written in languages which are understood by most of the editors (English).  Now we have a new type of bias which has emerged - a bias towards topics which commercial interests wish to promote for their own gain.  Sampling bias is pernicious.  While I applaud the efforts of  (and others) to research references, this is simply the wrong place to be directing those energies.  Once the selection criteria is biased, no cleanup efforts can correct that bias.  WP:PROMO trumps WP:N.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional. – the rewritten article is not promotional. Please specifically point out where you believe it's promotional. While I applaud the efforts of (and others) to research references, this is simply the wrong place to be directing those energies. – it is not your place to direct volunteer editors where to direct their energies. Once the selection criteria is biased, no cleanup efforts can correct that bias. – this is wrong per Editing policy. I have corrected any Neutral point of view issues here. It is false to say that once a non-neutral article has been created, its issues never can be remedied.  That you don't like the topic because of its origins is not a valid reason to delete a rewritten neutral article about a notable topic.  Cunard (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2015 (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.