Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ERP vendors


 * 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 keep. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of ERP vendors

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete As per per WP:NOT, WP:NOT. Bardcom (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep/Merge The topic is notable and adequately sourced. It forms part of a set of articles whose root is Enterprise Resource Planning. The content might be rearranged between these but that's merge/redirect not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't support a Keep/Merge as WP:EL states that links to avoid include those that link to websites that exist intend to promote a website, or exist primarily to sell product or services. Bardcom (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The context for that guideline is Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject.... and so these links are appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article subject is a List of ERP Vendors - which appears to be a farm of links. None of the links point to an official page of the article subject "List of ERP Vendors".  If the subject was "Microsoft", then a link to the official Microsoft page is appropriate, as per your quoted guideline.  In this case, I don't see how it is appropriate.  For now, let's agree to differ.  Bardcom (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article only has one external link and so it is not a link farm. The links you seem to be talking about are to other articles in Wikipedia and that is normal for a list. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not a "link farm", I meant it in the context that the article is merely a list of links. Bardcom (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. You're complaining that a list ... is a list? --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, looking at Deletion review, this seems to be a case of WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith on my part. I understand why you felt it appropriate to mention this though, no problem.  Bardcom (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please then explain why you argue so furiously in opposite directions in the two cases. "methinks he dost protest too much". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you took the trouble to read the previous argument, you will clearly see that I conceded the argument. Hmmm .... And I'm not trying to argue 'furiously' - I must take a close look at my style because you're not the first (or second) person to say this to me, and I'm taking it constructively.  Rather than being aggressive, I'm merely trying to be responsive.  I hope all my points are clear and precise...  But one point you should take away from the previous argument, I don't stubbornly and stupidly hold to a single point of view in the face of arguments that are well made.  I read every comment and either respond, or adjust my reasoning accordingly.  Bardcom (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of The Argument Sketch. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Note also that the parent article on enterprise resource planning is a largely unreferenced, vague, abstract, evasive, and dodgy, buzzword-laden article defining a hard to pin down, broad category of non-consumer business software.  There is apparently some market for publications in the style, unfortunately: but the entire business seems to me to be an attempt to publicize a newly minted three letter acronym for commercial gain.  Given the dubious nature of the parent article, we do not need an article linking to vendors who market products using this wannabe buzzword. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A search on Google Scholar produces about 28500 hits which makes this topic more notable to scholars than habeas corpus, say. (I picked a legal buzzword for comparison as your user page says that you are a lawyer). Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD is about the List of ERP Vendors page only. Bardcom (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough. The parent article is still the sort of thing that needs to be regularly policed for spam, and probably to be rewritten in plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my God. I had to take a class in college titled "Enterprise Resource Planning." I think this is the biggest indictment I've ever seen of Wikipedia. An ERP usually makes up MOST OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN AN ENTIRE COMPANY. By "information system," I mean software you use in a company. Enterprise denotes the whole company, whether it's Home Depot or Wal-Mart. These things usually cost tens of thousands of dollars to buy. CEOs are the ones who give the OK for this kind of stuff. CEOs often have several meetings a month over how the implemenation of an ERP system is going. It takes years to install. Actually--on second thought, go ahead and delete it. Maybe when I'm in a better mood, I'll just laugh about it, instead of be so bewildered.--Bluesages222222 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out several times, the only article actually up for deletion is the list of vendors. The list of vendors would appear to me to be also redundant to List of ERP software packages; if this is kept, I would suggest merging the two. But if the root concept is so important, as it might be, it deserves an article in plain English, with fewer buzzwords and evasive abstractions.  The root article contains multiple issues apart from vagueness; it routinely addresses the reader as "you" in violation of the Manual of Style's usage recommendations, and contains what appears to be how-to guide materials as well.  If the subject is truly importance, it deserves a well written article, not voluminous and vacuous piffling about the Integration of Processes and Systems. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD is only about the List of ERP Vendors page only. It is not about ERP in general, despite some of the comments here.  If necessary, that can be a different debate at a different time. Bardcom (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This isn't just some random collection of external spam links, this is a list of notable vendors of a key corporate-level software product (even if most consumers don't know what the heck it is and can only see buzzwords). These people are not expected to have heard of it or know what it is, but it is a multi-billion dollar annual market. It's detailed in sortable tables, for pete's sake -- way better than the average bear. Sure, could use a few more sources, maybe some language tweaks, but definitely a notable topic presented in a useful way. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was never stated to be a "random collection of external spam links". It would be better if you specifically addressed the issues raised here: namely the article goes against WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Bardcom (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no indication this is a "guide to the internet" or a "repository of external links". This is an article listing notable companies, not websites, and there are no external links in the article at all. Would you care to explain, first, how those two guidelines apply, before insisting that I rebut your claim that they do? --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article does in no way violate the rules presented here. WP:NOT clearly states that the content it forbids are text books, guides and annotated text. This article mainly presents the user with an overview of the market size of the ERP software segment. This is statical information, which is in no way a guide, and in no way meant to teach the user about a subject. Its factual information.
 * Please re-read WP:NOT. It doesn't state anything of the sort.  Bardcom (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Second, WP:NOT is also in no way violated as far as i am concerned. The article is not a mere collection of links, but instead presents an overview of the ERP solutions available on the market. I agree that the information in this article could use some restructuring and extending, but the shape of the article is not bad enough to warrant any form of deletion. There are more pages that fit into the category this article falls in, and those prove that this kind of article is perfectly usable. Personally i would like to refer you to two quality articles that are in a lot of ways similar to this one. Articles:  List of Revision control software  Comparison of Revision control software   Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in clear violation of WP:NOT. It's a vaccuous article that exists only to promote vendors of ERP software.  It's exactly the sort of article that is specifically mentioned as not being suitable Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.  There is zero encyclopedic value. Bardcom (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Other articles are not relevant to this discussion as per WP:ALLORNOTHING Bardcom (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:ALLORNOTHING rule is created to prevent discussions that can be summed up as "You did that!", "So? They did that to!". In this case the All Or Nothing rule is not applicable, simply because i am not referring to the other articles in order to give this article a KEEP because both articles would be wrong. Im merely pointing to it to show that with some work, this article can be a quality article just like those two are. in this case, i would like to mention the INSPECTOR essay.
 * Second, i don't agree that there is no encyclopedic value in this article, nor do i agree this is simple promotion. This article provides data on the market size and total revenue of a company, as well as providing a list of the available ERP vendors, all of which is valid information for an encyclopedia. I agree that at this time it could fall under the repository ruling, but this is NOT a mere useless list. More tables columns data could be included to create an overview of the different available ERP vendors which are all notable. Again  This article needs work, but is by NO means NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. If you think it is not encyclopediac, please show me a rule that will support your point of view that the data in this article is no good. And with this i dont mean WP:NOT as that rule mainly governs the way information is presented in. -- Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines cited by User:Bardcom seem to be misguided, I fail to see how they are relevant. WP:NOT talks about web sites, which this list is not about, it's about companies. WP:NOT explicitly allows lists. In the guideline for lists, one of the suggested purposes of a list is Information, where it says ''The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.'' Since List of ERP vendors is sorted by revenue and allows for comparison of international vendors by converting to a common currency (US$), I think it fulfills this criterion. The list also explicitly cites an external source for the major five vendors and relies on the articles for the smaller ones for the revenue figures (assuming they are correctly sourced). Therefore I fail to see how this particular list violates any Wikipedia guideline. To add some history: The list initially was merely sorted alphabetically and was the target of a lot of spam additions. Since I've converted it to the current format, it hardly ever is spammed again. The mentioned List of ERP software packages on the other hand is a regular spam target, with its alphabetical organization. --S.K. (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the record, I've been one of the main editors of the list for a while.
 * Hi S.K., Wikipedia articles should not read like a guidebook and this article fails WP:NOT because the article exists only to promote the nature of a service offered by the companies mentioned. It fails WP:NOT  because it is just a list of links.  Adding revenue figures doesn't change this, IMHO.  It also fails WP:NOT as the article is also a directory of companies selling ERP software - Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Bardcom (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And in what way does it "Promote" ERP vendors? All it does is listing market share and turnover for the company. I fail to see what kind of promotion this is, especially seeing that about every major vendor is there. Shall we just delete all articles on ERP companies on Wikipedia alltogether, as those are much more of an advertisement then this simply, unbiased list? Im not getting into the presented rules again, as i already said i don't deem them broken. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 10:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information of an encyclopedic nature, not an indiscriminate list, and I find the arguments convincing (so I won't repeat them) that "DIR", "INTERNET", and "REPOSITORY" do not address this kind of list.  The article does exhibit one limitation of lists, that they must be maintained.  It's about a year out of date and ought to be made current.  Also, the second table purports to list companies in approximate order of worldwide revenue from ERP application but it neither cites nor even reproduces the data from which the ordering was done.  If we're going to hold that one out as a comparison it's best if we can find the entire table from one source rather than obtaining (and citing) the data piecemeal because that introduces some methodological problems of comparing apples to oranges, raising possible WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues.  Wikidemo (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No Encyclopedic Value. As stated before, this list is a vacuous article that only exits to promote vendors selling ERP software. You don't state which arguments you find compelling - all of them?  Some of them?  A vague wave at policies doesn't add to the debate.  I've summarized the 3 policies it falls foul of above, and the reasons why, and I've addressed counter-arguments as they've been made.  If I were to summarize the debate to date, I'd say that no justification has been made to keep the article and that it certainly fails DIR and REPOSITORY.  The argument for INTERNET is less clear since it could be argued that revenues are an achievement - but since the article is so out-of-date anyway, even this argument probably fails. Bardcom (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not going to repeat the arguments. I don't have to.  They've already been made.  This is a forum for expressing our views.  The closing administrator is free to weigh my comments as heavily or as lightly as they wish.  You've already made your point, above.  You don't have to criticize everyone who dares oppose you.  The breadth of my wisdom on policy matters is not up for debate, but rather whether the article should be deleted or not.  I think not and from the discussion so far it looks like this AfD nomination will fail.  You're entitled to your own opinion, which you have already expounded on at length.Wikidemo (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not be silly - I think you're getting a little emotional with your response. I didn't criticize you, or anyone else.  All I did was point out that most of the arguments to keep this article are vague waves at policy, and I invited you to to expand on your reasons.  I'm genuinely interested in understanding the arguments, and I'd prefer to see stuff added to Wikipedia than deleted.  Also, I'm not trying to "expound at length", but instead I'm trying to be responsive.  It irritates me when I ask questions or make arguments, and then never receive a response.   I'm trying to engage in a debate and to be precise, and not vague, about the arguments as I see them.  My response to you was intended to be an invitation to put forward a more precise argument.  Sure, we might have a difference in opinion, but that's OK too.  For example, you state that the list is useful information of an encyclopedic nature - my question is, where is the encyclopedic nature?  I've also pointed to precise paragraphs within the policies - other people have not.  You may feel that the consensus is leaning towards a keep, but any closing admin will see that so far, the keep argument is as vacuous as the article.  Bardcom (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Time for me to drop in here again. As i have earlier pointed out, this article does NOT fail DIR and REPOSITORY guidelines. Repeated arguments why it does file these guidelines are simple rephrases of the points you made earlier, so i am not going into that. Also, this article can be considered encyclopediac. It offers a nice compact article displaying to the market size and distribution of the ERP systems market. Furthermore, it offers links to companies active in this 26+ billion dollar business. I still fail to see why this is " Advertisement". The article is in no way whatsoever promoting a specific ERP vendor, or even the ERP market. There is no argument for this being an " Advertisement" that would either conflict with the rules, or would not be true for each and every company or market related website on wikipedia. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Break We're going round in circles. You keep repeating your arguments, and I've made mine.  Although I'm continuing to invite people to actually point out why they don't violate the policies quoted.  So far, not one keep editor has argued convincingly and precisely on the original reasons quoted, and most appear to be happy to argue a different point.  To me, I find that editors that want to jump to a different argument tells it's own story... Bardcom (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut it out. I am not being "silly" or "emotional" for disagreeing with you, nor is my contribution "vacuous" or vague.  You're one step away from a civility warning here.  I don't see that you're interested in other opinions at all here, you're just shooting them down.  The result is an unusually long, nonstandard AfD result that's hard to read and make sense of.  Why would a neutral editor want to walk into this? You've had your say, many times.  Please let others have theirs.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? I did not call you silly. I have not criticized others. I do not see other contributions as 'daring to oppose me'. I do not like being threatened with a civility warning.  I've tried to keep this argument on target and to the point, and I've tried to engage with others' arguments.  I am not shooting anything down.  Apologies for insinuating you were getting emotional. Bardcom (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and please Examine this nomination as a possible WP:POINT violation, in which it should be speedily closed. What is this? It appears from this comment that the nominator is unhappy over the deletion of another almost identical article listing software providers, which he argued strongly against to the point of bringing a deletion review, and is now wasting our time playing devil's advocate by blindly making the identical argument his opponents used in that other article.  If so that qualifies as Disruptive editing.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss on your talk page Bardcom (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * note - we've had a polite chat and I'm satisfied that Bardcom is acting in good faith and not attempting disruption; I still do think this discussion has become quite messy. I know we don't really have prescedent as such in AfD, but it would be a little odd if we have inconsitent results from nearly identical articles. Why are we getting nearly 100% keep results here, when the other article result was a delete?  Wikidemo (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from the different set of editors involved, note that the sources indicate that CEP is a novel technology which is still struggling to establish itself while ERP is a mature technology which is used by most large corporations. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the lack of sources to back up the statement of "struggling to establish itself"? While it is a new (and novel) technology, it is notable - the distinguished analyst firm Gartner have already held a conference last year on CEP, and are planning it to be a regular event.  Unlike most new (and novel) technologies that start out being promoted by small start-up firms, the list of credible and well established firms associated with CEP is in itself a weighty factor in it's notability.  Rather than struggling, it is more correct to say "swiftly gaining in use, popularity, and status"... Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikidemo, this discussion is a lot quieter now. I'm interested in helping to resolve the situation whereby we end up with inconsistent results for nearly identical articles.  Have you any ideas on how to resolve this?  My suggestions is to ask some of the admins that were involved in closing the previous article Deletion review to look at this article (and perhaps other nearly identical articles too) and to make a general ruling or set of guidelines?  My points have been made in this article, and I don't think there are a lot of other arguments that can be made (unless a more experienced editor or admin can make the argument more precise or better...).  Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikidemo, there is no inconsistency as as far as I can tell. The difference to my knowledge is simply, the point I cited above about the purpose of a list. The decision is based on the rules for lists, none of the other cited guidelines have any significance. If the list has a significant added value compared in particular to a category, it can stay. List of CRM vendors was deleted, because it was only an alphabetic list. World's largest software companies exists, because it has additional information besides the names of the companies. I'm not sure, what Bardcoms list contained, but I would guess it was just raw company names, providing only data, not information. --S.K. (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi S.K. Simply not true. The CEP vendors list was remarkably similar to the ERP vendors list - sortable columns, extra information, etc.  Offers were made to extend the table with more information, as I mentioned here deleted but the article was still in violation of the same policies as this one.  Stepping back, I think we would all benefit from Wikidemo's suggestion to resolve this situation for all articles of this type.  I made the suggestion to ask some of the admins involved in the CEP vendor discussion to help resolve this situation, but I haven't done anything about it yet as I was waiting to hear if anybody objected.  Nobody has objected so far, so I will ask Hu12 to get involved as he appears to be interested in topics such as these. Bardcom (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (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.