Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Platform 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) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Platform as a Service

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

Subject not verifiably notable. Of the 3 references provided, one is the author's commercial site, one does not even appear to refer to the subject specifically and one is a passing reference in a ~1,000 page book. Article apparently written under WP:COI by subject (a WP:SPA who already has a colorful past, as well as a number of IP editors) and most of the edits are problematic (typically de-prodding, removing templates, re-adding removed categories, etc.). WikiScrubber (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and lacking in significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust as a service. --Bejnar (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Platform as a Service has almost 40,000,000 results at Google and 56,800 as an exact phrase. Therefore it is obviously verifiably notable and should keep its entry in Wikipedia. Further, the first claim that one of the references in a major book is not speaking directly of Open Platform as a Service is false as there is only one Open Platform as a Service (it is a trademark). It would be like claiming someone mentioned Java in a technology context, but is not talking about Sun Microsystems programming language. To the same, any mention of Open Platform as a Service is referring to the one and only Open Platform as a Service. The second attempt to dismiss yet another mention in another major book is not valid as it is far more than "passing." In fact the book uses it's highest form of recommendation (a Bulls Eye Tip) to highlight and heavily recommend its readers use Platform as a Service if they are getting into Cloud Computing. How many times does a book have to say something is good for it to be be valid? Should we question Dickens when he said "it was the best of times it was the worst of times" in his novel Tale of Two Cities because he only said it once? Is an album in Rolling Stone not "awesome" because the writer only said it was awesome once in the review? Do we not really have the freedoms in the US Constitution because they are only mentioned once? Lets rejoice in the power of word to only have to say something once and not go down a slippery slope. 68.84.243.232 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if google hits were a valid AfD metric (they're not) then I can't help but to notice that many of them are someone (you?) spamming articles with comments (not to mention things like this), interviews with the developer(s), press releases, etc. Then there's that other company who have chosen to go to market with the same (generic) name, so many of those hits may not even be about the subject (so much for "there is only one"). Incidentally the "highest form of recommendation" would have been more than a passing reference - perhaps an entire section or passage (and that's assuming the book is even considered a reliable source, which I doubt). WikiScrubber (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that notability hasn't been demonstrated (and probably can't be demonstrated) but please don't exaggerate the case for deletion by calling contesting a WP:PROD tag "problematic" and casting doubt on the reliability of a book published by John Wiley and Sons. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree, but contesting a prod is problematic when you do so without so much as an edit summary (and take out an {{article issues}} template for good measure) and reliable source or not, it was a passing reference. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically an advertisement for a new technology created by the article creator. JIP | Talk 08:46, 14 March 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.