Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office management 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 delete.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Office management software

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating on behalf of User:Rubbish computer (per ). I have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. I have !voted below. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This article serves no purpose other than the promotion of its content. If it were to be trimmed of promotional content, none would remain. Rubbish computer 18:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Editor has changed to keep below-- JAaron95  Talk   14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google Books search shows that many books devote significant coverage to the topic. Here is an example. The solution to the current poor state of the article is to improve it, not to delete it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The book you cited does not really make clear what it means by "office management software." It seems to be talking about something like MS Office and its competitors. I expect that we have an article already on this topic. Borock (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked and "Office suite" redirects to Productivity software. That and a bookkeeping program, like Quickbooks, would probably be enough to manage an office. But like I said in my vote they don't seem to come packaged together.Borock (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Whilst I agree this current article is rubbish, there's lots of sources out there about it, so it can pass WP:GNG. Needs complete rewrite though, I'd consider nominating it for WP:TAFI. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I've changed my mind; I've worked on it a bit and it does provide some information. Rubbish computer 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Even with your changes,, I don't tyhink anyting signifiocant from tejh current version would survive into a properly cited, properly WP:POV, proeprly written version. The topic is clearly notable, but I think this is a case for WP:TNT. DES (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the article does not properly explain its scope or purpose. "Office management software" may be a Wictionary entry. This is now a short list of random alleged such items. I suppose there are other articles which describe Word, Excel, Powerpoint, outlook etc. and there is Category:Software. TNT is the best option. Kraxler (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - might work as a disambig page, or category. But as others have said, it's not clear exactly what the scope of this would be from the article's text, nor from what I can see in a search of "Office management software".  At the moment, it appears to include other categories of software like Word processors and Personal information managers.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I expected to vote to keep from the title, but it seems (from what's in the article itself) that there is not really any software package specifically designed to manage an office.Borock (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I've looked at the article now and WP:TNT seems like the best option. The topic sounds vaguely notable but the article provides absolutely no evidence that it is, and doesn't contain any content worth including. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:59, 18 July 2015 (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.