Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customer experience design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Experience design#Commercial context. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Customer experience design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism 2-3 months old, per admission on talk page. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Experience design#Commercial context, which already states: "Commercial experience design is also known as customer experience design." That article was created April 12, 2005, and the term has been in there from the start, so it is substantially older than the newly founded CXPA; in fact, it occurs in this publication from 2000. But Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for the CXPA, and we don't need this corporation speak. --Lambiam 05:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per frankie. The current text is unhelpful for, well, anything: the discipline of deliberately creating interactions based on the wants, needs, and limitations of customers.... As some parts of the economy move toward commoditization, customer experience design is a multi-discipline approach that strives to create meaningful differentiation between brands. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Experience design#Commercial context as per Lambiam. Besides, article is far too promotional in tone. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:43, 8 September 2011 (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.