Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customer

:{{la|Customer}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Customer}})

A meandering article that is at best an expanded dictionary definition, this is an essay with a notable(!) lack of references. It wanders way outside the topic of a customer per se. I have strong doubts that an article on the topic customer has any encyclopaedic value anyway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Convert to a dab page. There's (just barely) enough entries: Customer (song), Customer Smythe and Customers Bank. A wiktionary link will round it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Convert per Clarityfiend. I can't see how an article on this topic would hold encyclopedic importance. I was going to decide to redirect to wikt:customer, but the pages pointed out by Clarityfiend seem to justify a disambiguation. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Per recent improvements, I would be fine with keeping it. I still think the creation of a dab page would be a good idea, though. Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is an 8-year-old article with 300+ incoming article-space links on a topic of central importance to the capitalist business ethos and the subject of an endless number of academic and private marketing studies. The recent improvements by Uncle G, adding references to the article, demonstrate that this is a noteworthy topic with more than a sufficient supply of reliable sources to develop the article further.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I note and welcome the improvements. They are good to see, but do nothing to assuage my doubts that this topic is, of itself, a dictionary definition. I also note the 8 year old comment. That something is old does not mean it is good, nor does it mean it is valid to include here. It simply means it has been around for a long time. That a thing is the topic of numerous studies does not make it inherently correct to retain here, since I argue that it is a dictionary definition. A Customer is one who purchases something. That's it, really. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Almost any article can be reduced to one sentence but that doesn't make it necessarily a dicdef. --Ifnord (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion is due (overdue?) for closure around now, but all I can see comes down brodly to a no consensus outcome, something I always find to be a poor outcome. I'd like to suggest it be relisted in order to seek to generate a better consensus, or at least to try to avoid a no consensus outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (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.