- 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 no consensus to delete, and no reasonable expectation that a further relisting would generate a consensus. Whether one or more merges are in order can be discussed separately. BD2412 T 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Microsoft Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Never expected an article with primarily product updates and text such as "With this update, Microsoft Dynamics 365 has welcomed integration with Microsoft Teams search box" to be called "abuse of SD", but here we are. I am unable to find independent sourcing that's not a rehash of Microsoft press release and specs on which to build a more neutral article. Can't identify a great merger target either. Star Mississippi 15:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Microsoft software - article is essentially a guide and is a gross violation of both WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTIINFO. While it's perfectly fine for tech-related article to mention how the tech works (like for example, articles on operating systems, like Linux or Microsoft Windows, this article in particular has a promotional tone to it, reads mostly like a guidebook and is just keeping a list of all of the different updates, features and whatnot, which is a big no no even for articles on software. The difference with articles like Linux and Microsoft Windows is that those articles actually mention the real world significance they've had and have entire sections dedicated to their historical impact. This article on the other hand is just more or less having an article about Microsoft Dynamics just for the sake of having an article on Microsoft Dynamics. Once you remove every bit and piece of content that makes this article more like a guidebook/promotion, you no longer have an article and there's nothing that can be added to this article that would make it not just a guidebook/promotion. And any argument for keep would be whataboutism, which I anticipate happening given I've seen AFD's of this nature get derailed to death by a bunch of users that'll just jump the bandwagon arguing to death why their favorite article should be kept without substantiating their argument beyond the ever so common WP:ITSUSEFUL.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Abuse may have been bit harsh, but it was clearly not in scope for a speedy deletion under G11:
If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion
. Trim all the corporate/promotional speak and make it a stub? It's clearly a popular group of products that anyone working in finance would have heard about, even if the average person knows Microsoft for Office and Windows. I'm getting about 400k people mentioning in some fashion it in their LinkedIn profiles, mentions in lots of books and journals. EditorInTheRye (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With so many books written on the subject, this is an easy choice. I agree with everyone else that this can use some cleanup and updates. gidonb (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge the other articles on various editions of what looks closely related: Microsoft Dynamics AX Microsoft Dynamics 365 Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central (merge proposal for months) Microsoft Dynamics 365 for Finance and Operations each of those are even lower on the notability threshold. However, one neutral article (without the bullets and buzzwords promoting features) would seem worth it. W Nowicki (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Microsoft software though that needs a refresh too. The product umbrella is really wide; the individual articles that should be improved. The article would get really long if we combined into one article. I'm working on merging the Dynamics NAV into Dynamics 365 Business Central and trying to trim the ads. ShadowXVII (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Microsoft Dynamics 365 is a duplicate of this page as well. ShadowXVII (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but cannot follow the "umbrella" analogy. If we redirect to the list, then all the text would be missing, the useful history along with the marketing. I was trying to say that if we removed all the marketing (lists of features, etc.) then one article on all of the Dynamics family would be likely to be kept. It looks like quite a bit of work has been done now in that direction, but still way too much duplication with, say Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central Microsoft Dynamics 365 etc. Maybe you might be proposing a compromise of merging into two (or three?) articles for all the Microsoft Dynamics * articles, if they are cases of very different technology that are given a similar sounding name to make them appear more integrated? That might also work. W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 9 March 2022 (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.