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. (non-admin closure) Theopolisme (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procurement PunchOut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. The only Google Books hit is a diploma thesis that mentions the concept in one paragraph. Huon (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I am aware that in your context, the concept of Procurement PunchOut may not seem to have notability. The reality is that within the procurement market (which makes up a large percentage of the business to business market) it is a very relevant aspect in eCommerce, which has become the status quo in commerce. Due to the fact that it is very niche, widely circulated sources are not readily available. That said, the ones I have used are in fact reliable, and I am continuing to look for more and better sources. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Mbenny101 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are numerous Google books hits for this such as this and 'that. Warden (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Using search parameters that don't look for only the exact phrase "procurement punchout" will provide much better results. This is one book of several that discuss punchouts. As for the naming, it might make sense to move the article to Punchout (procurement). -- whpq (talk · contribs) 13:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage, as noted by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colonel Warden. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (per Colonel Warden) and improve: definitely notable, though it needs more references and some cleanup. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2013 (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.