Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consultative selling


 * 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. Consensus as it stands is in favour of deleting this article. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Consultative selling

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article, while at first appearing to be valid, consists entirely of original research or of synthesised original research. Requests for citations have not been fulfilled. While the topic of consultative selling exists as a concept it is the simple difference between talking to the customer and meeting their needs as opposed to taking money at a cash desk. I'm hardly even sure that the topic merits more than a dictionary definition..

Yes, there are references to books, but a book does not of itself make a notable topic, and the books appear to me to be used to synthesise original research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Keep I've never contributed to Wikipedia so I don't know all the ins and outs about Wikipedia policy. While this article may not currently have the depth of treatment about the topic that is preferred, simply having the topic listed invites others to contribute to it. As a verteran sales trainer I know that consultative selling has a lot more shades of grey to it than a previous contributor suggests.  My action step as the result of reading this article will be to alert folks involved with selling on LinkedIn to contribute to is. It's richness may increase if allowed to remain posted.Chicagosalestrnr (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment why not improve it yourself, if you are a sales trainer and have knowledge of the topic and can produce good quality references from reliable spurces. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jargon. redirect perhaps, to Salesmanship or something of the sort. As the article says, it's always been practiced. You go into a store, and they have from time immemorial asked you what you are looking for and you tell them. Making a name for this does not make it notable.   DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I would not argue against a redirect to a relevant article Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unreadable and trivial content, likely intended to promote somebody's salesmanship seminar: Consultative Selling is an approach to selling based on a dialogue between the salesperson and the customer. First, the customer is encouraged to express his/her needs. The salesperson then selects the product or service that best meets these needs and adapts the sales message to the customer's needs and language. I get it!  You find out what people want, and you sell it to them.  How long did it take to figure this out? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * As presently written, it's a list of statements of the blindingly obvious. Sales is the process of asking the other person to define a problem, and then recommending products and services that will solve it.  Everyone from doctors and solicitors through to double glazing telemarketers does this.  But we ought to have an article about it even if it is obvious -- see WP:OBVIOUS. I think the content we are considering is best covered as a section of Selling technique rather than as a separate article.  So I will recommend merge to Selling technique.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is irrelevant whether the information in the article is trivial or whether everyone has always been doing this. And if the article is unreadable (Easter egg alert: that is not the same as patent nonsense), so fix it, don't delete it. The only relevant criterion is whether the topic is notable, a requirement that is fulfilled if there exists non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There are many book hits; I have not attempted to evaluate how reliable they are and how non-trivial the mention is, but some books have this even in the title, and it would thus seem plausible there is enough material out there. --Lambiam 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's actually more to AfD than the question of notability. Two things that have the same name should only have one article.  By analogy, Barack Obama is notable.  So is President Obama.  Lots of non-trivial mentions of both, but the rule is, one subject, one article.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, in general there may be more to it, but while the names "Barack Obama" and "President Obama" are synonymous here, hopefully you'll agree that there are other selling techniques than what has been dubbed "consultative selling", such as bait and switch, Tupperware parties and in general party plans and other forms of multi-level marketing, telemarketing and other forms of cold calling, and in-store demonstrations. So the rule "one subject, one article" does not apply here. --Lambiam 15:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that the "advice" model of selling is not the only one. But I don't think we would be helping encyclopaedia users by fragmenting the selling techniques article into a half a dozen separate short pieces, each written and watchlisted by a small number of interested editors.  What works is to have a smaller number of articles, each of which is more in-depth.  In this case it has the benefit of being able to include a useful discussion of the relationship between different techniques (so you could use an "advice" sales model while telemarketing, for example).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:52, 14 March 2010 (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.