Talk:Comparison of CRM systems

No Criteria for Inclusion
This page is full of non-notable additions without Wikipedia articles and external links. There appears to be no criteria for inclusion although the lead says it is a Comparison of Notable CRM systems. I propose removing all red link additions and external links retaining only additions which have an article or which are from organisations with an article. Any comments??? Vrenator    talk   13:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Update Required
With recent developments in Cloud Computing, I think this page is long overdue for an update, including the deletions proposed by Vrenator. Is there anyone alive out there?--Graham Proud (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * definitely needs an update, and at least one current CRM software has had it's page deleted, the English version for XRMS crm was deleted in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xrms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.14.103 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition of HubSpot
Hi there! I'm here to request the addition of HubSpot CRM Free to this article. The CRM was launched in 2014 and has been written about in reliable sources, such as Inc., HuffPost, Business Insider, Information Age, VentureBeat, TechRadar and Entrepreneur, among others and of course, HubSpot has a Wikipedia article. The bulk of the General and Features tables in this article are unsourced; in my drafts for the tables below, you'll see I have referenced as much as I could, but some specific technical details have not been written about in third-party press.

Can someone review these proposed additions and move them into the live article if everything looks OK? I have a conflict of interest as I'm here on behalf of HubSpot as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Because of this, I will not directly edit the article. Instead, I'm seeking input on this addition via edit request here. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The technology itself must have its own Wikipedia page before it can be added to this list.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review here, Spintendo. There are currently multiple instances in this article where the technology pages are not separate to company pages, or where a company page exists but no technology page; hence my thinking that given HubSpot's notability, the technology might be listed. Any thoughts on that? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CSC, entries should have a "non-redirect" article. Strictly applying this guideline, some current entries are indeed questionable and should be discussed. But for now it doesn't make sense to add even more questionable entries, unless a clear consensus supports differing list criteria in an exceptional case. - just a suggestion, but if you believe that these criteria are too restrictive, it might make sense to start a discussion at a guideline or project talkpage with more traffic and feedback. I am in favor of a very restrictive handling to avoid bloated lists, but it could be helpful to clarify this aspect not only for CRM, but for all software- and product-related lists. GermanJoe (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks GermanJoe, appreciate your perspective on this. I do tend to think that the restrictions here aren't quite as clear as they could be, nor do they take into account entries like Salesforce, which has an article for the company but not a separate one for the CRM system, yet I doubt anyone would say that Salesforce isn't notable enough to be included. That's a great suggestion to take this question to a relevant WikiProject, I'll definitely do so and see what others think too. Thanks again. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you missed the part in WP:CSC #1 that says, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." If can show that the WP:GOLDENRULE is met for this product, we should include it. If you want this list to be more restrictive than WP:CSC #1, that's fine but you should demonstrate that there's a consensus for that. Currently the lead says, "notable CRM systems" and so WP:CSC #1 would be assumed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am well aware, that redlinked entries can be added for topics that are likely notable. However, I am not sure that Hubspot CRM really meets this requirement (the product wasn't even mentioned in the main article, and most of the listed sources are SPS, thinly-veiled advertorials or press releases - although to be fair 1-2 of them might be usable). Also, the inclusion of such redlinks for potential articles is supposed to encourage article creation by uninvolved volunteer editors, not to support product marketing efforts for more web presence. For large product lists with continuous promotional additions, the current strict "no addition without article" handling makes the most sense. GermanJoe (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I overlooked collapsed content above. I get a different impression from the listed sources. I find a good case for notability based on, , , . ~Kvng (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Links #1 and #4 in your list are almost entirely based on company information about the product. Sources #2 and #3 engage in marketing activities for covered vendors and have a financial conflict of interest (per and ). I am not saying, that these sources could not be used in an article (atleast for uncontroversial information). But the claim of notability is still thin, when it's based on such involved publications - a properly reviewed article with 1-2 more good sources would help to clearly verify the claimed notability. GermanJoe (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This is really helpful; I had felt that HubSpot CRM is close but not quite there if I was to prepare a draft and submit to AfC (reviews for COI articles tend to err on the more cautious side), which is why I've not gone ahead with a draft for the product itself. With that said, re: GermanJoe's note that HubSpot CRM "wasn't even mentioned in the main article": I've made a request to add details about the product there, based on the available sourcing but it keeps being declined because the reviewing editor seems to be confusing it with the requests to add it to the comparison table articles. Would one of you be inclined to take a quick look? Thanks so much in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, quick postscript here re: sources above, these sources are the ones I could find to support the specific details of the product for the tables here, and do not necessarily represent the strongest sourcing available. I felt that to confirm details such as the languages supported and implementation language, it might be ok to use primary sources. These are NOT the sources I'd use to write a potential standalone article. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 14:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting inclusion of HubSpot CRM
Hi again! Following up on my previous request, I wanted to open up a discussion to see if editors feel that HubSpot CRM Free meets the criteria to be added to this article, following the recent discussion at WikiProject Software about the restrictive rules for entries in software list articles. Based on the suggested changes to the guidelines and general comments in that discussion, I wanted to give another shot at seeing if editors feel this is an appropriate addition (then I promise I'll put down the stick and back away!).

In the WikiProject Software discussion, Warren said, "we don't need separate articles for both a software company and their solitary/primary product. See Facebook, LinkedIn and salesforce.com for examples". GermanJoe also wrote, " if a notable sub-topic is covered in sourced detail as part of a larger main article, a redirect to this main article should be permitted in lists". Also pinging other editors who joined in that conversation: Kvng, Guy Macon, and Pursuedbybaer. Wondering if we can reconsider HubSpot CRM Free based on those comments?

A few thoughts on notability / changes since my original request:
 * First, a section on HubSpot CRM Free was added to the main HubSpot article.
 * Secondly, HubSpot CRM Free now redirects to the main HubSpot article.
 * Third, as I discussed earlier on this Talk page: the sources I used in my proposal are the ones I could find to support the specific details of the product for the tables here. I do think there are more decent sources to consider notability of HubSpot CRM Free, here's a few that I found:
 * Best CRM Software for Small Businesses in 2018, Inc.
 * The Effect Of HubSpot’s CRM Launch On Salesforce, TechCrunch
 * 15 technologies that empower ecommerce stores in 2017, Information Age
 * 5 Free Apps to Help You Move Your Business to the Cloud, Entrepreneur
 * 2015: the year marketing automation finally catches on, VentureBeat
 * Could HubSpot Be the Next Salesforce?, The Street

In case the above is persuasive to editors, herewith my proposed changes. Please note that in the System parameter, I have wikilinked HubSpot CRM Free, which redirects to HubSpot:

Once again, I'm looking for editors to give this consideration and confirm whether HubSpot CRM Free can be added here (and potentially also to Comparison of Mobile CRM systems). Since I do have a conflict of interest as I'm here on behalf of HubSpot as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I will not directly edit the article. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Include: Considering the references above, especially the Inc and Information Age references, It is my considered opinion that HubSpot CRM Free should be added to this list. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include: It would be better to clarify the general guideline first, but I won't oppose over a technicality. Maybe I'll just boldly change the guideline and wait for eventual hate mails ;). GermanJoe (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, looks good to me, and thanks for being patient and doing this "by the book". &mdash;  Warren.  ‘ talk, 01:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, Guy Macon, GermanJoe and Warren. As the three of you are in favor and there's been no opposition, would one of you be ok with making the updates? Also, would you be in favor of adding HubSpot to the Mobile CRM page too? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging also as you'd previously commented above, wonder if you might want to weigh in here and / or be bold! Cheers, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI)  15:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much again to everyone for their thoughtful comments and to Kvng for making the addition. Just briefly, do you all think that HubSpot CRM could be added to the mobile CRM systems comparison page, per my previous request there? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 15:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)