Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise social software

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. Davewild 12:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise social software

Enterprise social software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Marketing nonsense - seriously - does this make any sense to anyone? Oh, its also unsourced so presumably original research. Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980·talk 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep seems to make sense to enough people as indicated by the number of edits and editors contributing.... notable article, needs improvement, list easily discriminates what is and is not on it. --Buridan (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments: 1) could certainly stand to be re-written, but I'm not sure what the nom thinks it's marketing nonsense for, exactly; no particular product or service is advocated. 2) For those unaware, this article has a bit of a history; a previous AfD on a previous incarnation became the subject of a Harvard Business School case-study. 3) in what way does four references and a heap of outside links count as "unsourced"? -- phoebe/(talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Perfectly understandable, part of ongoing efforts to re-structure business and government organizations to make them more useful and responsive to their stakeholders. Well documented compared to many WP articles. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems like an article could be written with reference to reliable sources, but the article needs to change from how it is currently.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:38, 28 November 2007 (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.