Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobility-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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility-as-a-Service

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created under WP:COI by subject (User:Fiberlink), blatant WP:COPYVIO of their commercial whitepaper, irrelevant/unreliable/paywalled/self-published sources used (since removed), not verifiably notable, reads like an advert (even if author removed the tag), lots of original research, etc. etc. thus:

Strong Delete as nominator -- samj _in ^out 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm curious as to why this article doesn't qualify for CSD G12.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam!

I am the author of the article Mobility-as-a-Service.

I am new to Wikipedia and this is one of my first contributions to Wikipedia. Before starting to write in Wikipedia, I had very thoroughly studied the guidelines for contribution to Wikipedia. Before making my article live, I had been developing it in my Sandbox space and had got the article reviewed from at least four wiki editors. I have been constantly criticized for the advert tone of the article. I have not ignored this remark and am working on to improve the article. If you look at the article (with references added), I have placed enough references to maintain the notability of the article. When you said that I have violated the copyright acts by using one of the readily available white papers, I did not understand. The reference white paper was readily available on the public domain. I consulted my mentor and he explained that I might have picked up content of the article directly from the whitepaper. I am a ‘writer’ by profession and do not enjoy infringing. However, I am currently restudying my article to verify your claim.

I have worked hard on my article and hope to contribute more to Wikipedia articles. I request you to not nominate the article for deletion. I would be happy to work on the article in my stub area under your mentorship. I had been looking for a mentor under the wiki computing projects and will be glad to get your help. PCJain (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. This article and copyright concerns in it have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 April 11 for evaluation. There does not seem to be extensive copying from any one source, but some close paraphrasing and smaller copying has been detected in several. The white paper in question is not public domain, I'm afraid, but is reserved under copyright (© THINKstrategies, Inc., 2008). Even if it were not clearly marked reserved, I'm afraid we'd have to be able to verify what makes it public domain before we'd be able to use it. In addition to the concerns with that source, I've found a bit of content that seems to be taken from [1] (it says "Companies today are strategically connecting to partners, suppliers and customers around the world to optimise efficiency and drive down business costs"; the article says, "Companies today are strategically connecting to partners, suppliers and customers around the world to optimize efficiency and reduce business costs.") and from [2] (the four sentences beginning "Workers often have difficulty connecting...." seems to be replicated in the article). I do not know if other sentences or paragraphs are based on other sources, but I'm afraid that the article will need to be rewritten to address these concerns, if the AfD closes keep. Since addressing copyright concerns will not resolve other issues, I am delaying closure on the copyright to allow the AfD time to proceed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MRG's investigation @Copyright problems and above. Very obvious cio spam. Jack Merridew 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I work on this article in my stub area? I will rewrite my article taking care of the above facts. If I do have an option, can someone help me move the article to my stub area? PCJain (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to assist you with this and I'm anyway concerned about a company writing about a new type of product; a neologism that I don't think meets Wikipedia's high standards for verifiable notability... not to mention the other problems identified above, including the verified WP:COPYVIO. Copy the page to your userspace and work on it there if you like. -- samj _in ^out 20:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spamcruftvertisement. Brad 02:37, 21 April 2010 (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.