Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Sales Tracking


 * 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. Consensus is that the articles fails to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple Sales Tracking

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim of, nor sign of, meeting our guidelines for software notability. Sources are a posting at the KillerStartups blog announcing its launch (and stating "It doesn’t offer anything exciting or new in sales management so it’s questionable how successful they will be", not exactly a shouting of notability), a review on SmallBizCRM which appears to be a WP:SPS (a blog that had 45 postings in 2014, and none before or since), a posting on the subject's own blog, another copy of the same KillerStartups coverage linked to through the Archive so it looks different, a single paragraph at Gigaom, and a quote from the company's website on a list of APIs. Searches find nothing more significant. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed on sourcing issues. Gigaom seems like the only reliable source, but SST is not the main topic of the article and it's certainly not enough to meet notability. Jeremiah (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Nat Gertler and Jeremiah Mountain. The software is widely used, however sources discussing it are few. I really thought Gagaom coverage would make it pass WP:GNG. I believe something can be made out of this article, but it's not up to me. I'll see if I can find some other sources. In the meantime, could we put the deletion on hold? (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't really put it on hold, but you can request userfication, so that if it is deleted, you'll have a copy in your user space that you can work on for a while and resubmit if you find something that's not currently apparent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 3 References added. 1 Removed - Good call Nat Gertler on the Web archive reference and the one that pointed to the author's own blog. I had a quick look on their website and uncovered 3 additional references - which are much better quality than the first ones, sorry about that.  They are:
 * But those are weak references as well. What you have is:
 * Telerik TV, which is "a virtual library of showcase videos dedicated to applications built with Telerik’s development tools and components" - i.e., a company showing off what its customers can do with its products, so that's clearly not independent.
 * 45 words in a person's blog. Not significant.
 * The CRM Help Desk Software looks appealing at first - the piece is at least long, but this appears to be a never-shared article on an obscure, rarely-updated blog. Is this a significant source? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Telerik TV, which is "a virtual library of showcase videos dedicated to applications built with Telerik’s development tools and components" - i.e., a company showing off what its customers can do with its products, so that's clearly not independent.
 * 45 words in a person's blog. Not significant.
 * The CRM Help Desk Software looks appealing at first - the piece is at least long, but this appears to be a never-shared article on an obscure, rarely-updated blog. Is this a significant source? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks like 1-2 blog posts per month on CRM Helpdesk. I think the share count could be misleading.  It's a very old article and for all we know the share button wasnt there when it was posted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditordownunder (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the Telerik spot is an infomercial. The presenter is a member of Consilium Solutions, which is another name that the owner of Simple Sales Tracking goes by. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I has a quick look and found another independent reference. The blog is much more active than CRM helpdesk, but it's not exactly Lifehacker.
 * I've also found that the product has been recommended/mentioned in 2 published books - Cause Marketing for Dummies and The Complete Idiots Guide - Starting a Web-Based Business


 * I'll probably leave it at that. Not sure what it's going to take to get this listed and can't spend too much longer on this. talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The blog is just a copy of material from the simplesalestracking.com website, with a note that he intends to review it at some point. That's pretty much like a press release; we don't count press release reprintings. The two book mentions add up to three sentences total, so neither is significant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I notice that all of the dozens of entries at Comparison of CRM systems have their own articles, in many cases with as limited or non-existent notability as this subject. I.e., a case could be made for bundling a large number into this, or another, AfD. Pax 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There may well be value to such a bundled deletion. However, as the nominator on this one, I do not have time to check out all I'd need to check out and to build it up, and it looks like this individual one is reasonably close to being done. If you want to start a bundled deletion discussion for the remaining pages of concern, that sounds like a good thing to do! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are two sources listed which are independent and provide an in-depth review of the product: SmallbizCRM and CRM Helpdesk Software. Both are marginally reliable. If there was an in-depth independent review in a reliable source, I could see those other two pushing it over the edge. But on their own I don't think they satisfy the GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 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.