Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Target Account Selling


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Target Account Selling

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

Non-notable sales process. No reliable sources detail this process in any reasonable detail. Unsourced since feb 2007. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also spam, original research, and patent nonsense: TAS was one of the first training programs to treat selling as a prescriptive process that could be applied across a salesforce. It taught 20-questions for qualifying the validity of pursuing one sales opportunity compared to another. Five military strategies were taught to assist making decisions about how to deal with competitors during a sale, based on the writings of Chinese general Sun Tzu in the book The Art of War. The effect of relationship dynamics, politics and personal influence between buyers were also in the curriculum. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Not even an assertion of notability. Author is essentially a SPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is not a non-notable sales process, in fact it is very notable, as found in this book from 1963 and it's a concept covered in most sales and marketing text books from the '60s at least, as far as I know. The article is about a work-shop and not the sales process and is basically riding on the back of the latter. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't that a reason to Keep? Just because the article needs to be rewritten (even if that need is acute) is no reason to delete it. Ohms law (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has to be deleted to be rewritten, the current article has no connection to what could be the real article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm confused. "The article has to be deleted to be rewritten"? What kind of strange, circular reasoning is that? I know that sounds a bit like a borderline personal attack, but it's not really intended to be... OK, the current content totally sucks. I can accept that as a fact, but as a reason for deletion!? What about editing it to change it into a better article (even if that basically entails blanking the page, that would still be more productive then deleting then it). Ω (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I remain sceptical about whether this marketing method (or any other, really) is a proper subject for an encyclopedia article, I am open to being convinced. But this text seems to be spam, intended to farm links to a website.  The current text probably ought to be wiped from the history because of that.  So any deletion should be without prejudice to re-creaton, but this ought to go. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? When the current article and the possible have no connection, it has to be created anew, to just purge the history. This is one of the cases where WP:TNT is required. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The is an example of a reason not to delete and article, as specified in WP:ATD, which is part of the overal deletion policy. Ω (talk) 14:30, 17 June 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.