Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The attribution issue has been addressed, rendering this a possible solution and one that has consensus. Star  Mississippi  15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After the last AFD, a DRV was opened and resulted in no consensus as a service. I have used my discretion to relist here and am neutral. I would encourage contributors here and the eventual closer of this discussion to read the previous AFD first. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Lists.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - basically serves little purpose as there are relevant categories for navigation and another index page with better layout. If someone really was searching for as a service they'd find better pages so I don't see what this page could possibly add. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with JMWt. We already have Category:As a service and As a service. Why would we need another article for this?  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - The original page was an unacknowledged copywithin from As a service. This has been expunged but the copyvio wass still not repaired in page history (but I have just done so). During the DRV it was belatedly changed to a set index article (SIA) but by then As a service had itself been transformed into (a more complete) set index article. This article name does not lend itself to a useful SIA. The other article is the better SIA and the better landing point for one and this was always a WP:POVFORK of that one. As a list article it fails WP:LISTN and although an SIA is clearly useful, this one is now entirely redundnant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Partially repeating my comment in the DRV, the as a service article has been converted into a SIA after the previous AfD that includes all the entries in this article, plus some additional entries and information. Therefore, this list is now redundant, so it should be deleted. Liu1126 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure how neutral one can be when they open an AfD. If anything, a discussion of deletion can be placed into the talk article. One of the delete !voters should have opened this. Conyo14 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:DRV closing admin is simply executing a relist. Looks neutral to me. Deletion discussions happen at WP:AFD, not article talk pages. This helps them get seen by more than just the article's watchers. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification, thank you Novem. Conyo14 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with a delete outcome is that someone did a copy-paste merge during the previous AfD. This creates an attribution problem which is technically solvable by an administrator performing a history merge -- but that's a laborious and time-consuming procedure. We could avoid that by one of the other methods described in WP:PATT but it's likely a lot less work for the closer if we decide to redirect and add a r from merge to the redirect page.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I attempted WP:RIA yesterday with a dummy edit. Is that not sufficient? And as the original copyvio was replaced with new content, wouldn't a revdel fix this? I am not really clear as to why redirecting is a better option than deletion when a page was created by unattributed copywithin. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying material has been copied from List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model to as a service requiring attribution? If so, what content? If the copy was in the other direction, deleting this article will solve the problem; a deleted article doesn't need attribution. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I misunderstood. If the copy had been from this article to As a service then this would need to be kept and redirected. In fact, the content on this page was copied from as a service to create this page. During the DRV, As a service was improved, but without copying from this page. Material was already on that page, as it was the source. Thus, I believe there is no reason attribution here needs further repair (even bearing in mind that deleted pages still exist somewhere). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had this backwards! My sincere apologies.  I have no remaining objections to a delete outcome here.—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as there are two set index articles of this type and the other one is more developed and better named.—Alalch E. 13:37, 22 December 2023 (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.