Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sales 2.0


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sales 2.0

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

Trademarked brand name of a service and company that fail WP:CORP; attempt to masquerade as a general concept fails WP:Neologism. Closeapple (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  —Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my own nomination. This article has been speedied twice already, and people with a Conflict of interest association have continued to recreate the article and silently delete maintenance tags, so I'm putting this up for AfD to get this over with.  Take your pick: WP:NEO, WP:CORP, or WP:ADVERT.  "Sales 2.0" is a invented trademark (for a specific company's non-notable consulting service) attempting to masquerade as a general phrase (through astroturfing, from what I can tell).  As noted in previous versions and previous incarnations of this article, this is a neologism intentionally coined, apparently in 2007, by a company named Sales 2.0 LLC, then registered as a trademark (U.S. 3460752, application serial number 77218577).  This company also owns the domain sales2.com and claims "Sales 2.0 is a Trademark of Sales 2.0 LLC" right at the bottom of http://www.sales2.com/ itself (at least as of 2009-05-22).  In short, "Sales 2.0" is a contrived phrase that its inventor is attempting to get into the mainstream, while the inventor, which has registered it for a related but different but related concept, has the exclusive right to sell "consulting" related to it.  Its trademarked use is not for sales methods themselves &mdash; its official use is for consulting about sales methods, as per the trademark registration:"Business consultation; Consultancy services regarding business strategies; Consultation services in the field of company, business sector and industry data and research; Consulting services in business organization and management; Creation of marketing tools designed to increase a client company's knowledge of customer needs, and its competitors' products and services, pricing, advertising strategy and sales strategy"  Neither its trademarked brand, nor its alleged general meaning (which is a moving target) are notable. --Closeapple (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Customer relationship management as a plausible search term (100,000+ google hits, 150+ news hits since 2007). It doesn't deserve an article as it is a neologism for online CRM, such as Salesforce. Fences and windows (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The four "references" are sales waffle with no content. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't redirect - delete as per forming consensus, but don't redirect. That's to suggest that a company brand is synonymous with CRM. I can't think of a decent example, but it would be like Coca cola being a redirect to tasty, healthy, inexpensive drink that makes you more attractive to the opposite sex. Leave Sales 2.0 to do all the Search engine optimisation it wants, but let's not help them out! Note that Salesforce is a redirect to Salesforce.com, so I assume they're notable. Bigger digger (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't mean that Salesforce was a neologism, I meant it is an online CRM tool. It seems that sales professionals are using the phrase quite generally to mean the intersection between Web 2.0 and customer relations management. Us not adding a redirect won't have any effect on usage. Fences and windows (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pause before deleting, perhaps, on this logic: Wikipedia contains entries on Web 2.0, despite it being a conference and blatantly commercialized term invented by O'Reilly and Associates. There are also entries on Health 2.0 and Library 2.0. As long as the shameless self-promotion is excised from this entry, I'm not sure that this description of Sales 2.0 falls so far afield of those other precedents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtplanet (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (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.