Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CRM vendors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of CRM vendors[edit]
This article duplicates the category Category:CRM software, and doesn't provide any additional value. It's also historically been a target for spam links. It was WP:PRODded and deleted some time ago; since it's now been recreated, I figured it should go through the formal process. Kickaha Ota 17:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Update: It should be noted that this article might have been created because there were still a number of links to it in CRM-related articles. I've now gone through and removed all the links to it from the main namespace. Kickaha Ota 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam magnet for nn companies. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of companies out there with CRM offerings. Fan-1967 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this could be huge. Pavel Vozenilek 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
, definitely, if not speedy delete as a recreation of deleted content.as a spam magnet of little additional value when the category exists. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Naw, I don't think a speedy is appropriate here; anyone can reverse a PROD just by asking, so it doesn't really count as having been deleted. Also, this is the author's first contribution to Wikipedia, and it seems sincere, so let's try not to be too bitey. :) Kickaha Ota 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No encyclopedic purpose. GRBerry 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems a lot like an article "consisting only of links elsewhere". Major spam magnet with no real criteria set up on the page to bound the list (as Pavel says, there are hundreds of CRM products/offerings). Kuru talk 03:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Michael Kinyon 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Why all the delete votes? There are many lists like this. We cannot just delete this and keep other lists. Wikipedia must take a general stand on lists. Until that has been done I see no reason why this article should be deleted. It is not a spam magnet - all links are wikilinks (not the current article but the previous article did), thus notable articles. --Sleepyhead 07:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, there are plenty of list articles. But the list articles that exist generally either don't duplicate categories, or add some value that the category doesn't. For example, List of ERP vendors at least attempts to add value beyond what a category would provide, since it sorts the vendors by sales volume. (It lacks data for many vendors and doesn't cite its sources, but at least it's trying.) The other common reason to use a list as opposed to a category is to allow external links or redlinks to be included in the list. But since the editors watching the previous version of this article took a very hard line against allowing such links to be included (since they were often spam), that justification went away too. We're not judging the value of lists as a class; we're judging the value of this list in particular, and it simply doesn't give the reader any value that Customer relationship management and Category:CRM software doesn't already supply. Kickaha Ota 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or change it's definition: As long as this is only an alphabetic list, there is hardly any added value compared to a category. If the list gets another ordering criterium like for example revenue or market share, I could see value in it. And yes, it was a spam magnet before. But one other point to consider: I've created those list articles at times myself to relief the main article from the spam pressure. This often resulted in fewer changes to the main article which could then be better reviewed compared to ignoring changes to an article because one knows it's probably just spam again. This might be a reason to keep it. --S.K. 09:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above "delete" votes. Would vote to keep if summary descriptive information were added about each vendor's offerings.
- 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.