Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sales process


 * 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. No prejudice towards a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sales process

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to be original research, essayism around a subject - with an arbitrary title "sales process", Borderline case of WP:Complete Bollocks eg compare second sentence  A growing body of published literature.. with description of CB articles in the link. No evidence that (first sentence) A sales process is a systematic approach to selling a product or service is true, accepted etc. - redefinition of standard english term as technical definition with no evidence of real use. Basically WP:OR. Do not wish to labor the point - so will let the wider community decide on the 'encyclopediness' of this article, currently and potentially. Oranjblud (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * keep for something that's supposedly "original research" there sure seems to be a good number of references. Perhaps a change in title might be warranted, but that's not a "deletion" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not just count references please - which of those references actually contain any direct reference to the concept of "sales process" as a 'engineering term'?Oranjblud (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some are offline sources, some of which I've read. Many of them refer to the "sales process" by that very term.  Including the first one "Sales Process Engineering: A Personal Workshop" in its title.  It's a good-faith article, I'm fine with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve – Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. The topic passes WP:GNG. Tip of the iceberg examples include:
 * Book sources:, ,.
 * News sources:, ,.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into sales, for which this discusses the process. There is nothing here that requires a separate article. bd2412  T 16:22, 8 September 2012 (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.