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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SaaS integration

SaaS integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Article has multiple issues - it's not verifiably notable, constitutes almost 100% original research and does not accurately reflect the subject (which is anyway generic and typically refers to services e.g. consulting), all of which are no doubt due to the conflict of interest that arises from the authors' company's flagship product being "SaaS integration" software. It was previously nominated for deletion exactly a year ago and barely survived with "no consensus", in part due to a "weak keep" vote from me, but as it has not improved and is flat out misleading I'm running with Strong Delete today. -- samj _in^out 14:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Unreadable hash of vague glittering generalities that seems likely aimed at selling something: A business objective is focused on the creation of accurate, consistent and transparent information flows. Saas integration emphasizes flexibility, agility and responsiveness. It is concerned with how the capability is integrated into business applications as well as how it is passed along from one business process to another. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of WP:NOTE, lack of WP:RS separate from the mass of WP:OR. Reads like an infomercial, not an encyclopaedia article. Verbal chat 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is one among many written by a single author with probable conflict of interest, and its wording has too much of an advertising slant.—Tetracube (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 February 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.