Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private purchasing group

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 Group purchasing organization. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private purchasing group

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

DePRODed by creator without fully addressing the issue. One weak source was added. Concern was: Unsourced original research. Article is really little more tan a DICDEF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, it's not really original research, its a know technique to help companies group together to increase purchasing power. Unfortunately the original editor hasn't done anything to find valid sources. scope_creep (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what it is, Scope creep, but there are half a a dozen other terms for the same thing, so there may already be an article about it, making it a possible redirect. However, it's not in its present form a useful encyclopedia page. I originally PRODed it on 20 December, the day of its creation and dug it out of my PROD log recently which I go through occasionally to look for blue links, but I notice you re-proded (which is not strictly allowed) it yourself on 9 January with: Not an encyclopedic article. Doesn't utilize Wikipedia resources. Single link points to external third party website . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I forgot who I was talking too. I think when I was reviewing, it had some substantial gbook hits, I thought somebody might have spun it up into a proper article, by now. Its a pity, we need these types of articles, with odd and obscure knowledge, byzantine sales and marketing techniques. scope_creep (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your're right of course, Scope creep, but perhaps byzantine is not the right word for it. It's a legitimate and quite common way of getting suppliers manufacturers who are practicing unreasonably high prices to lower them. That's why some companies with disproportionately high prices sell only through their own retail outlets. Certainly worth a article if there isn't one, but I would have to recuse myself from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- dictionary definition at best; notability not established. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Group purchasing organization, an identical concept. Group buying is slightly different, but can be referenced for info. Also check on captive insurance, a similar concept in the insurance industry. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per TimTempleton as a ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:48, 19 August 2017 (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.