Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network as a service


 * 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. Anyone feeling the article should be incubated/userfied/etc. can drop me a line and I'll do so. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Network as a service

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article subject (a neologism) is not verifiably notable in reliable sources. WP:ADVERT created under conflict of interest by employee of Aepona, who claims to be "powering Network as a Service". Only unreliable and/or self-published sources and blog references were used. -- samj in out 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism and promotional: With the NaaS model, operators treat their key assets - network communications, billing and intelligence - as marketable resources that can be offered to third parties on a commercial basis.... The IGT has established a working group to investigate the NaaS concept. The NaaS concept continues to gain traction within telecommunications as industry analysts try to predict what impact it will have on the market. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reset article back to it's original state before nomination for deletion. If Wiki decides to delete the article then all well and good. The debate should take place on the original article which was already worked on alongside Wiki admins to try and get it in line with notability guidelines. Most, if not all references, to Aepona have been removed (in fact original credit for term goes back to 1997 with Fujitsu). There are two references out of 16 to Aepona - and no mention in the main body of the article. This article was written to fill in a gap in the Everything-as-a-Service article which has also been nominated for deletion. Given that this has been nominated by a Google employee, surely that also falls under the 'conflict of interest banner' given their own vested interest in the Cloud Computing arena?
 * Comment. I deleted the "Everything as a service" article and a number of redirects to it.  The only substantive contributor proposed it for deletion; other contributors were mostly adding various challenging tags for it.  I would reverse this if asked, but I don't think the subject has a lot of promise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure what any of this has to do with cloud computing or Google but for those who missed the connection I wrote that article myself (and some time later requested that it be deleted, in part because problematic articles like this one started sprouting from it). -- samj in out 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment: Added additional reference to a study produced by ABI Research. Unfortunately the actual report is $4200 (I am not that keen to see the article live on!). However the link provided does show the table of contents for the report and that the NaaS concept is discussed therein.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcvarno (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your recent edits because they undid a dozen or so earlier edits without justification. If you wish to re-add references that were removed then please ensure they are compliant with Wikipedia policies & guidelines including WP:RS, WP:SPS, and in this case WP:PAYWALL. Also bear in mind that WP:COI calls on you to avoid, or exercise great caution when participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization. -- samj in out 13:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please can the closing admin note this Which smacks of canvassing. Spartaz Humbug! 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um possibly worth discounting my vote too since I came this this noting possible canvassing on my watchlist, but this article is clearly outside our inclusion criteria. It says "an emerging business model". That's pretty much the definition of non-notable spam... Delete Spartaz Humbug! 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also my response - it was a good faith attempt to achieve consensus by notifying all of two nonpartisan editors - e.g. kosher per WP:CANVAS. Also note that I've reverted both. As for discounting your vote - that's really stretching the definition... your vote is fine. -- samj in out 12:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing admin can use their own judgement on this but I note that the last time Tetracube voted in an AFD it was to join Verbal in supporting deletion of something else Sam nominated and they only voted on 3-4 AFDs in 4 years editing. Non-partisan? Spartaz Humbug! 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdraw without prejudice for speedy renomination. I've been unjustifiably accused of having an unexplained conflict and subsequently repeatedly accused of canvassing, ironically by someone who agrees this is "pretty much the definition of non-notable spam". As I explained I'm currently working on a spate of "as a Service" spam and nobody outside of the author themselves is likely to vote to keep this article. Not wasting any more of my Sunday afternoon on this commercial abuse of Wikipedia. -- samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have noted Sam's concerns and his position on these articles. His level of frustration is obvious and if the article is selected for deletion then so be it. I have tried to make the article as non-partisan as possible. I have also referenced as many articles (including some but obviously not enough) that match Wikipedia's guidelines in my own opinion. This seems to be a fairly subjective area though. When I put this article together it was done so in good faith - not with the thought of advertising (note the number of times I removed references to my own company and left only two links in) but simply to fill a gap in Wikipedia which already had a number of 'as a Service' articles. However, in my opinion it is only a matter of time before these articles will once again emerge on Wikipedia. If my own vote counts then I nominate for deletion simply because I don't have time to get involved in what is obviously a larger debate (and in some cases - personal conflict). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcvarno (talk • contribs)


 * Incubate. Perhaps this article should be incubated? Abductive  (reasoning) 08:07, 13 April 2010 (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.