Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SplendidCRM (2nd nomination)

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 keep. - Philippe 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SplendidCRM

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/SplendidCRM Articles for deletion/SplendidCRM (2nd nomination)
SplendidCRM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep was tagged for speedy as being spam for a non-notable company. The article is a combined article for a product/corp, and includes multiple independent references. Some of the references are pretty weak, and I'd like to see the article cleaned up a little more, but I don't see any valid grounds for deletion as it stands. -- Mark Chovain 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has weaknesses, but is far from needing to be deleted. --MQDuck 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the article still has a lot of hype and such, but it appears to have generated the required notability from reliable sources. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-notable, non-consumer software package. The references appear either to be blogs or blog-like sites aligned with either open-source software communities or the "customer relations management" business, and as such may not be reliable sources or really independent. "CRM" is frankly a problem area, with too many vendors seeking the search engine conspicuousness that a Wikipedia article provides. The article still reads like advertising: ... new breed of Microsoft based open-source projects. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's to be expected that an open-source CRM package will generate coverage in media that focuses on open source software or CRM. We don't delete articles because they need clean-up - we just clean up the spammy bits, and end up with a better article. We don't delete articles just because they relate to "CRM". -- Mark Chovain 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure where you're going with this the "customer relations manaagement" business line. CRM is an established subset of business software at this point. It isn't some sort of quasi-scam like search engine optimization. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When an article relates to some sales-related TLA and contains advertising style language, my opinion is usually to err on the side of deletion. For what it's worth, "customer relations management" software seems to boil down to an electronic Rolodex, but the fact that computers are involved allows the vendors to add all sorts of wondrous claims as to what their devices can achieve. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I admire your cynicism; as a networking consultant I see more TLAs in a week than most people see in a year, and every project is a wondrous solution, although the problem it solves is not always evident. But we are discussing notability according to sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably not the best place to talk about it, but we may need more stringent notability criteria for marketing, management, and non-consumer business software topics, just like we do for porn stars. The likelihood of abuse is very high, the quality of writing is abysmal, and the conflict of interest meter jumps to 11. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's no SugarCRM, that's for sure, but it meets WP:SOFTWARE just barely using the provided references. There are more available on Google News Archive, and I encourage broadening the article's sourcing, as well as improving citation formatting. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (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.