- 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 per the snowball clause (over a day at AFD + 6 !keeps without any opposition). Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- SAP R/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This looks to me like spam, but it's not clear cut enough to be a straightforward speedy-delete. I personally don't see a way to clean it up enough to NPOV - and quite aside from that, I'd question the notability - but this is a field I don't know much about and for all I know this is the Microsoft Word of enterprise resource planning. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is clean-uppable, but (due to the aforementioned lack of knowledge) don't volunteer to do so myself should this be kept. – iridescent 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but I see why it is here. It needs to be shortened and better sourced. The software is notable (old version of ERP) but the article is very nonencyclopedic as written. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I trimmed off the most obvious of the spammy fat like material, only because I love the way you used "clean-uppable" in a sentence. I don't think I can do the whole job, but this is actually pretty informative in a "jab your eyes out with a fork" boring kinda way. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some of the content is unclear and possibly unencyclopedic (e.g. the "What is SAP R/3?" section, added recently, which may be opinion/original research), and more references are needed, but it meets notability guidelines and the article contains enough information to be kept. —Snigbrook 22:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Microsoft Office looks like spam too, so what? The subject is notable, simply because it's worth billions. But, unlike mass products, there's not a lot of public sources on bespoke systems. Those who know the systems make money by this knowledge; the users (like yours truly) keep quiet as prescribed by their profession. If, after seven years of Wikipedia existence, the community failed to write a proper article on one of two heavyweights in the area - then it just won't be done, ever. Perhaps it will indeed be better to replace this sorry stub with a redir to SAP_AG#products. NVO (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry stub?? It's over 17k worth of text. Did you even read it? And before you trash "the community" for "our failure" to write this article sooner, keep in mind that no one was stopping you from writing the article. I don't see how your comments are helpful in this discussion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one except for WP:COI and a signed non-disclosure agreement :)). As I said, it's a closed world. NVO (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Grades it's not a sorry stub, it's a "start" (what a pun for something created in 2003). Still a long way from 17K of bolded acronyms to a useful B-class. NVO (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry stub?? It's over 17k worth of text. Did you even read it? And before you trash "the community" for "our failure" to write this article sooner, keep in mind that no one was stopping you from writing the article. I don't see how your comments are helpful in this discussion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. It's true the material is very spammy, it's a matter of style, the failure to change PR style into something fit for an encyclopedia, but it can be the basis of an article. Yes, it is a disgrace that nothing better were done with it, and there are tens of thousands of other articles in the same position. The less time we spend here, the more we can work on them. (Although in practice listing things here does seem to help as an incentive--sort of like hitting the mule with a 2 by 4 to get his attention.) DGG (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Almost 2000 books mention SAP/3. I dind't bother to count how many are about SAP R/3. This is like asking to delete Windows 98. Did anyone notice it's snowing in here? Pcap ping 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow. SAP R/3 is probably the single most notable piece of ERP software that exists. No objection to cleanup and expansion. SAP R/3 has indeed been replaced by SAP NetWeaver in SAP's current lineup over the last few years, but SAP R/3 was the big dog throughout the 90's and NetWeaver stands on its shoulders. The German article looks substantially better--not surprising since SAP is a German company. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can't really put it better than the nominator - this is the Microsoft Word of enterprise resource planning. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.