Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saba Software


 * 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. On a simple headcount, this would be NC, but I feel the "Delete" arguments are substantially stronger and more based in policy than the "Keep" arguments, which largely are not based on policy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Saba Software

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is sourced solely to press releases and is very much promotionally written. Jeremy112233 ( Lettuce-jibber-jabber? ) 18:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is promotional, but a check for sources BEFORE nominating the article would show that the subject is notable and easily passes WP:ORG. For example   .- MrX 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The last one you point out could be RS, but the first two are self-published books, and the third is a tenuously RS, perhaps non-RS, blog. Definitely not enough to assert notability. Jeremy112233 ( Lettuce-jibber-jabber? ) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:B2B: apparently I see no significant coverage above the level of routine market wire, and even if I am missing something, the article as it stands now is not worth saving anyway. Thus I suggest deletion per WP:NCORP or rationale behind WP:RED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent references. As above, the refs in article are all PR, including the 'wall st journal' refs, which are in fact Business Wire Press releases, and clearly labeled as such. Of the refs added by MrX here, only the 2nd book, the Idea Group Inc/IGI Global book, appears to be independent, and on its own is not sufficient to establish notability of the subject.Dialectric (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 03:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is basically a stub and should be listed as such, however the subject is notable. Seriously, you want to live in a world where you can look up publicly traded companies of this size on Wikipedia.  Saba's Cloud software runs huge businesses like Virgin Airlines and Guitar Center (Also American Airlines, BP, and Kimberly Clark to name a few).  Is that from press releases?  You bet! ...but this is factual information, not opinion and the fact is that Wikipedia should have an article about Saba, a notable company.  Right now, when people Google "saba software" the Wikipedia article pops up on the right-side in an info box.  If the sources are bad, fix the sources.  List the article as a stub if its too short.  Deletion just takes this information, which happens to be accurate and also happens to be surprisingly unbiased, out of the hands of web searchers who need it.Christopher Lotito (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You basically say that the article should be kept because Saba Software inherits notability of its clients. It does not. If you think there are good sources, please add them to the article, or at least list them here. Until one does it, they don't exist. Actually, I tried doing so, and ended up !voting "delete". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is a stub and requires improvement, but the subject merits an entry in Wikipedia, and certainly merits improvement. Per previous comments, the material is factual, and relevant, if incomplete. Arrived here following a search for Saba and finding little independent review on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.167.20 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You just stated that you could find few sources on the web about the company. The company needs to have had lots of sources in order to qualify. Jeremy112233 ( Lettuce-jibber-jabber? ) 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I am in the process of doing some cleaning on the article. I'm not sure at this point whether it should be kept or removed ... stay tuned and stay cool. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - no sources to establish notability. SPACKlick (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2014 (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.