Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customer experience


 * 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. Buck  ets  ofg 00:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Customer experience

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotional; COI; single, self-published source: The first paragraph of the article is a word-for-word copy from a consulting company's newsletter, with two minor changes. The second paragraph is a word-for-word copy from the same source. The editor that created the article is the author of the source material. The author is not a "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field" per WP:V. Ronz 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect. Useful information should be merged with "Customer service," which is the far more common term for the concept this article appears to be conveying. The current article may contribute particularly to the Competitive advantage section, and its title can be used as a redirect.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with redirecting, I'm just not sure what content can be merged. Nothing from the body of the article can be per WP:V. --Ronz 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with merging and redirecting. -- Iotha 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Zahakiel. Keep and rewrite per Dhartung. Intent of the article did seem to be self-promotion, but that doesn't mean the content is totally useless. As long as the external link to the "journal article" is not there, I don't have a problem. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Customer experience is not customer service, I would not suggest a merge. Customer service -contributes- to the customer experience, just as satisfaction with the usage of a product does. The article is not self-promotional. Whether the author is "well known" is relative, and whether he is "professional researcher" seems to be a personal judgement. Agree on removing the external link. Apart from that I feel as it is there is not sufficient reason to delete this article. -- DavidJacques 05:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (and cleanup and reference), this is an important marketing terminology and that lies somewhere between customer service, branding, and environmental psychology. 825 hits just on the New York Times site. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on the importance of the term. It is a commonly used term in marketing and its usage is increasing. Again, it is not customer service, branding or design but includes them all and more. -- DavidJacques 07:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete if not significantly rewritten by the end of this AfD and better sourced from reliable secondary sources. This is a copyvio from the newsletter and appears to be original research. -- Charlene 11:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced things made up one day. Seems like an attempt to attach special meaning to a common phrase. meshach 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesnt seem to be relevant to Wikipedia so i'm going to have to say delete.  Telly   addict  15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wryspy 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- either a dictdef or an attempt by a nn company to hijack an ordinary phrase (in which case spam.) Sdedeo (tips) 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge (and Cleanup). Customer experience management would now lack a definition of Customer experience. Perhaps the management can follow its definition. There are references to a few books in the Customer experience management article, one of them (of the same name) from which the article is directly derived. -- DavidJacques 17:52, 28 January 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.