Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERP system selection methodology


 * 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 merge to Enterprise resource planning. The part to be merged is the lead along with the one reference only. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, c, l) 04:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ERP system selection methodology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essay about a topic with dubious notability as a standalone topic. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, seems to be promoting an ERP software vendor's view on how to buy ERP software. Fails NOTHOWTO and WP:PROMO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's false. The whole point of this topic is to choose between vendors.  The page does not focus on or even mention particular high-profile vendors such as Microsoft, Oracle or SAP.  It mostly talks in very general terms and the sources are likewise independent. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly! If it was written by a high-profile vendor it would say to select an 'experienced vendor', with a 'strong track record'. If you wanted to find out which company commissioned the article look for a smaller player (in 2009) i.e. "Selection Bias", probably from a developed country "Over-Emphasis on System Cost", that also does consultancy work "Failure to use Objective Professional Services", and that offers "Focused Demonstrations", etc. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The page cites sources by respectable publishers such as the Cambridge University Press and Harvard Business School. And it is easy to find more books about the topic such as The Enterprise Resource Planning Decade which states that "There are a number of ERP software selection methodologies documented in the literature...".  The topic is therefore notable and the rest is a matter of development rather than deletion per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page..." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Management-speak HOWTO that's been tagged as needing drastic improvement for over a decade. Improvement is not going to happen. Nor is there any clear reason why this deserves an article separate from Enterprise resource planning. (It reads like a copyvio, but it's so old that trying to find the original is probably not worth the trouble.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge a smidgen to Enterprise resource planning - basically, the first reference, stating that there are a variety of selection systems. The rest is lots of overly specific How-To and badly- to un-sourced synthesis. This belongs in a management seminar three ring binder, not on Wikipedia. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge to Enterprise resource planning, as stated above, the first reference is worth porting over to the other article, but everything else is basically just WP:SYNTH and is not worth saving. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge (very selectively) to Enterprise resource planning, per reasons above. I think the lead is about all that could be merged based on the sources. Almost all of this article is OR/SYNTH, that is more of a technical guide than an encyclopedic article. This is not an independently notable topic apart from the merge target. Even if sources did exist, this alone is not a reason to have a stand alone article; in this case the content would be better included in the target. This is an unneeded CFORK., would you be amenable to a selective merge of the lead?  // Timothy :: talk  16:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A merge of the lead only is fine by me. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes definitely. I should be very clear for the closer, I'm talking about a merge for the lead with an appropriate ref(s), nothing else. Otherwise I'd be a Delete.  // Timothy :: talk  22:40, 13 March 2021 (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.