Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customer experience blueprint

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 redirect to Siebel Systems. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Customer experience blueprint

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What the heck is this? It's so filled with buzzwords I can baerly tell that. Google shows little besides some buisness manuals and indecipherable junk. Ipatrol (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism and meaningless jargon. JIP | Talk 05:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider the customer experience blueprint for Wikipedia:

The volunteer is invited to contribute to the sum of human knowledge.
They are presented with a blank form upon which to write a free-form, unstructured article about their topic.
Experienced editors assist the volunteer by correcting technical errors such as mistakenly placing references in the edit summary.
Ignorant or hostile editors propose that the article be deleted.
Ritual combat determines the fate of the article.

Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siebel Systems, which created the Customer Experience Blueprint. I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about this topic (most of the articles in Google News Archive are either press releases or passing mentions), so the best alternative to deletion would be a merge/redirect to Siebel Systems. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siebel Systems as per Cunard. McMarcoP (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply. Siebel Systems seems somewhat dodgy too. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siebel Systems per the phrase's use on a number of websites, including owner Oracle, that indicate readers may come here searching on the term and not the article name. The article's info and link would not be useful additions to the Siebel Systems article. Flowanda | Talk 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete. For something coming out of the high tech world, I'd prefer to see more than this. - Richfife (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2009 (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.