Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saas integration


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Saas integration

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does this pretty inscrutable article tell us anything that is not already in the software as a service article? The only reference is no help. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * A discussion at the talk page could have made your redirect stick. Or, you could have tried to redirect again, this time with an explanatory edit summary. I don't know why you brought this to afd. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - "SaaS integration" is a notable topic (for reference a Gsearch for "SaaS integration" has 44k hits) and the nominator didn't really give a solid reason for deletion. Whether or not this should be merged and redirected with SaaS is a topic for the talk page. Bringing something to AfD is probably not the best choice when another editor doesn't like a summary redirect.  That is why we need to talk about these things and reach a consensus. See WP:MERGE for more help. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Creator Input - Hello - firstly I am impressed with the level of debate over this submission.  Yes this is my first complete original submission to Wikipedia but it is not my first time being published.  This subject matter is quite relevant and will continue to expand as it becomes more of a standard.  Yes there are a great number of references to it on Gsearch and it is the manifestation of many accepted international standards.   I expected this page would have the opportunity to be contributed to by the community and in that belief provided what was thought to be the appropriate level of content.  I was not expecting that it would be removed.  After the first deletion I did submit an editorial summary reason for the un-delete as suggested.  The thinking at the time was perhaps the reviewer did not have a complete grasp of the subject matter.  I did not receive any comment or direction from RHaworth.   If I have erred in the process please provide with the guidance on the correct process.  Related - the same reviewer RHarworth saw fit to go and remove all of my edits and refernce links on other submissions.  One had been there for 6 months if not longer. Only one cited the reason as a pointer to commercial content.   This was not the case - that content was a non-vendor discussion I gave to the Information Resource Managers Association a sister organization to the Data Management Association (both internationally recognized communities).  The content was hosted on our corporate web site because it was no longer hosted on their web site but was vendor neutral.  It is noted that the same editor did not remove other content from these postings that is vendor specific.   Again I thank you for this debate and consideration.  I think it appropriate that it be confined to this posting only and not to everything I have submitted to Wikipedia.   My credentials and expertise on this subject matter are without question.   I request that this page be un-deleted along with my other edits.  Sincerely Markcowan  • Talk   01:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your credentials and expertise on this subject matter are irrelevant, even if anyone else could reasonably accept your claims to having them. That's not how Wikipedia works.  To the world, you're just a Wikipedia editor with a random name, and there's no practical way to prove to everyone that you are who you claim to be.  So we don't.  See User:Uncle G/On sources and content.  Everything here must be verifiable.  If you want to demonstrate expertise, demonstrate it by citing sources that document the subject, from which the content can be verified.  One of the parts of being an expert is knowing where to lay hands upon published articles, books, papers, and suchlike that deal with the subject.  So show that you can do that.  Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Creator Input Uncle G and all - I agree that is about process and contribution not about the contributors expertise. It was mentioned to point out that the content was relevant and informed not superfluous.   That being said the content was only up for less than a day - hardly enough time for any other member of the community to contribute.  Secondly it did cite an external source that was a non-vendor standards body.  I can load it up with references if needed however my intent was to provide initial content  so others could participate and provide sources of reference beyond the single source of reference I submitted.  Again it was deleted without comment or guidance and escalated to AFD immediately.  Further any other edits on other unrelated subjects (which were pointers to external sources) by the contributor were removed by the same editor.  So can this be un-AFD'd - I will continue to edit and add sources.  Sincerely Markcowan  • Talk   03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An external link to an organization's WWW site is not a source citation. A source is published material against which readers can verify the content in the article.  Please read the Five Pillars, which was hyperlinked to by the welcome message that was placed on your talk page before you created this very article.  You can add such source citations now, as the AFD discussion continues.  Nothing is stopping you.  Please read the Guide to deletion. The only things of yours that have been deleted so far, by the way, were your first attempt at an article here and your creation of cloud integration, which were both blank pages with zero prose content whatsoever. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Creator Input Hello - Uncle G - it appears we were just slightly out of sync. While you were commenting here I was adding sources and references.  I am continuing to look for "non-vendor" and non-commercial references that are open.  I did receive notice when first creating the Cloud Integration page that there would be a few days to provide content.  It was taken down over a weekend before I could move it to a user page. My focus for the interim is ensuring integrity of this submission.  Sincerely Markcowan  • Talk   20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a better approach, but it's not perfect. Wiktionary isn't an acceptable source, for example.  Please read User:Uncle G/On sources and content and Reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Creator Input Thanks - the pointers were helpful ... I removed the Wiktionary definition - I wondered if it would be classified as a self reference. Added some additional references and external links.  Created two additional content sections.  Markcowan  • Talk   19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, though in what form is unclear. There are a number of interrelated articles around this topic and I believe there is currently both overlapping content and somewhat confusing interlinking between them. Cloud computing, Software as a service and ofcourse Saas integration. A discussion for the organization of the articles (perhapps expanding into System integration, Digital integration, Service oriented architecture and Enterprise application integration) is however a topic for those Talk pages. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article is hardly comprehensible to someone who is not a specialist on this topic (I'm not even really sure what the topic is), and the 'references' are not really references: it is unclear which statements in the article they support, two of them are blogs, and the other is a general link to an open standards website (and I'm not sure what that means). The author would do well do consider the audience--seeing as I don't understand what's at stake or how the references support the article, I'm inclined to vote delete. I may be a dummy (and if you agree you're in good company), but I'm also a Wikipedia user, and this article should speak to me as well. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, unless it is drastically improved with sources. Weak Keep I *am* a specialist on this topic and the article's not entirely comprehensible to me either, though the subject itself is probably worthy of an article. At very least tag it with article issues. -- samj in out 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Creator Input I'm in the process of a rewrite. How long does the extension last? --Mark Cowan (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, changed to weak keep. Interesting subject and you seem a good person to write on it... just keep an eye on WP:COI. -- samj in out 02:37, 26 February 2009 (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.