Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of demand generation software


 * 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   no consensus. This has been relisted twice and has 2 delete and 2 keep votes and the consensus isn't clear at all. There are too less arguments that can possibly lead to deletion perhaps it is a NC case keeping the condition of re-AfDing in future. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 04:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of demand generation software

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is plainly an aggregation of sales sites. It looks like a directory and I don't find it worthy of inclusion per WP:NOT Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

THis is a very helpful simmary do not delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.55.112 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Definitely a well-compiled stand-alone list. The fact that it aggregates sales sites does not make it unworthy for inclusion. Several of the items listed have articles and the topic itself is notable. See WP:LIST. If this article is deleted, it calls into question any other list that only contains commercial items. It has more references per entry than any list I've seen. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not convinced that "demand generation software" has been treated in multiple reliable sources as a group, as required under WP:LISTN. A books search of the phrase gives only five hits, and none of them treat the subject as a group of things; they all discuss a particular piece of software. There's some coverage here, but this doesn't seem to be a very reliable source, as it's a commercial services site. There's some discussion here, but it's a column, and as such is not really a secondary source. There's also talk here at cnet, which is a reliable source, but it's also a tongue-in-cheek column (the phrase "I really wasn't expecting to have to wallow in it yesterday. :-)" is used). Other coverage seems to be either a) websites of companies selling such software or b) blogs and websites that wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. There's an element of WP:OR here in the synthesis of information from commercial sources into a list comparing demand generation software. There may be a commercial motive behind this article, but I'm not sure and wouldn't directly make that accusation, assuming good faith. --Batard0 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources found. Even parody can show notability. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2012 (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.