Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Joyner

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ALREADY DELETED, but by User:Seglea. -Splash 02:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Joyner

Vanity. smoddy 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) see also Mark Joyner Constructs, Mark Joyner Construct Zero, Spread the Meme

• Delete, smells of self-promotion. I have just tagged a number of related articles for vfd. Mark Joyner main claim to fame according to the article, his ability to promote MindControlMarketing.com, only gets 914 google hits, which is not much for a term which should be notable for having been artificially hyped on the internet. Thue | talk 21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI Just updated to remove reference to mindcontrolmarketing.com

which incidentally ranked #1 on Amazon due to pure Internet Promotion, the book was largely promoted by email (which isn't spiderable by Google) Note: the book reached #1 in 24 hours of launch and succeeded in knocking Rudolf Giuliani off the #1 spot (who incidentally was promoting his book, 'Leadership' every half hour on CNN. There are 36,000 hits on google referencing "Mark Joyner" Even J Conrad Levinson (the grandfather of Guerilla Marketing said this: "Mark Joyner is an Internet Marketing Genius. He is the best. No question." PS I added this name space Davejohnson 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, looks very much like an ad... and if your book goes to #1 on any major site, it will definitely get more Google hits than that. --Idont Havaname 23:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Idont Havaname - in that case, what is the Wiki entry advertising? :)

take a look at these Google results for this specific search term mindcontrolmarketing.com amazon #1 it's pretty conclusive. like I said, the book was cleverly promoted using email, which doesn't get spidered by google. I can understand why you find this hard to believe, getting a #1 at amazon the way he did, and without spending money on advertising is exactily the reason Conrad J Levinson (Author: Guerrilla marketing cites Mark as an Internet marketing genius, and that is exactly the reason why I believe he deserves his place here on Wikipedia Davejohnson 01:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete The book is now 47,586 on Amazon and being discounted. That is probably <1,000 sales. It is very difficult to believe it was ever No #1. This is unverifiable vanity--Porturology 06:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The author may want to read Wikipedia:Autobiography to understand why this is being received so negatively. Thue | talk 06:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I might be persuaded otherwise if Mr Joyner sorry Johnson could give us the date that his book went to number one, and the total number of copies sold. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the dates, but if anyone's interested in validating these facts, you could try googling this Mark Joyner Internet you'll find over 121,000 references to him, I'm sure there will be some entries with details of his best seller, dates volume etc. I don't know the figures, I mearly read the book. Davejohnson 22:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

PS.. Interestingly the legendary british football manager Terry Venables only has 26,600 google hits when searching analogously Name + Field ie Terry Venables Football Davejohnson 22:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Surely if would only be classed as vanity if I were him -which I'm not, but I admit I'm probably a little more fanatical about this guy than most :) Davejohnson 22:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This is Mark Joyner, the topic of this entry. Allow me to comment on a few things. 1. Mr. Johnson, I'm flattered and appreciative of your support. If you could provide a link to your site or some other way of identifying yourself it might be helpful to folks who are suspicious that you may be me posting under a pseudonym for the purpose of self-promotion. 2. Amazon best-sellers. First, whether or not I wrote a book that was a #1 best-seller may not be the best gauge of the worthiness of my entry here. Next, the number of Google references is certainly not a valid metric for determining whether or not a book was ever once a #1 best-seller (nor is it's current rank). However, if you wish to verify that it was a #1 best-seller I suggest checking with Amazon. It was a very well-publicized campaign and there are many a witness to the fact that it beat out Rudy's book (if only for two days). What was important was that it was all done with grass-roots marketing. The fact that Amazon just pre-ordered 3,000 copies of my upcoming book might give you an indication of the faith they have in my marketing abilities. 3. Self-promotion. While I would love to have references to my books in here, what's really important to me is that Dave mentioned the Mark Joyner Constructs. If nothing but that project were mentioned here I would be delighted. The intent of that project is to change the world consciousness in a way that prevent humanity's self-destruction - a far more important topic than my books about sales and marketing, and far more interesting than dissecting the facts. I do hope those ideas remain here. 4. Accuracy. As the topic of the post I can vouch that what Dave has said is true. Again, for the Amazon case I'd recommend contacting them directly. I'm not sure if they maintain an archive of the past best-seller lists (it's updated every hour), but that would be the best objective 3rd party to settle the matter. -- Thanks again, Dave for your support regardless of the outcome. I hope I can see hanging out in my community. [Mark Joyner]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.