Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Enterprise Application

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 as copyvio. WinHunter ^(talk) 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Enterprise Application

The article appears to be purely original research. In an edit summary, the author wrote "I am a Graduate Management of Global IT sutdent at American University Kogod School of Business. This is acedemic information we and others have been researching" after removing the {{prod}} tag. Further investigation appears to show that it is not possible to write an article on this subject that would not be original research at this time.

The "references" provided appear to either trivially use the term or are apparently merely examples of the subject (many of these do not contain the term at all), except for two. The ZDNet blog post and the "RIA to REA" link actually discuss the subject, but both are blogs. Not included in the article (I dug it up) is this "About REA" page from the newly-launched company/site JackBe, which seems to be the only existing non-blog sources (and then, due to it's unreliable nature, would only be acceptable in an article on JackBe).

Google hits for "rich enterprise application" are only 1,050 (23 unique), and they all appear to merely mention rather than discuss the term. Most notably, one of the "references" in the article is a blog post that seems to indicate that the acronym of the term (REA) was coined August 24, 2006.

It appears that the subject's time has not yet come. The article should be deleted as original research on a subject that has no primary sources published in any reliable sources (i.e., fundamentally unable to not be original research at this time). — Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject has been discussed with all included companies including IBM. It is not original research; just not very mainstream or publicized yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wagnermr14 (talk • contribs) September 4, 2006.

  Comment. If it's not publicised yet, then there are no secondary sources (analysis and synthesis) based on the primary research material. Note that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and so cannot have articles without access to secondary sources. This is why the article has been nominated. Please read our policy Wikipedia:No original research for a definition of "original research" from Wikipedia's perspective. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Don't turn this into another Enterprise 2.0 thing. The resources backing REA are there if one does their homework. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wagnermr14 (talk • contribs) .

  I've done my homework: I understand Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I've looked for the resources that back up REA and are acceptable under those policies and found none. I don't deny that it exists, as it clearly does. All I am saying is that no reputable secondary sources are available, which is a prerequisite for having a Wikipedia article. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Nickieee 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The last thing I have to say is that just because one can't 'link' to a source or mention it just yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. REA is real and sources are there if one had access to the sources which some don't have the luxury at this point which is why something like a wiki is great for the world. But if you and others keep censoring input, that benefit is severely diminished and is a step back from what Web 2.0 is all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wagnermr14 (talk • contribs) September 7, 2006.

  You might consider reading the very short article entitled The World Will Not End Tomorrow. I'm still not denying it exists, and it's not censoring: there are simply minimum requirements of verifiability of information in the encyclopedia, and one requirement is the existence of secondary sources. If an article can't be verified, it does not belong at Wikipedia. If there are references, please provide them—offline print references are perfectly acceptable given a full citation. This deletion vote will not continue if the article is properly referenced with secondary sources.

  (Also, please follow page formatting conventions [you'll note I've reformatted your comments], and sign your comments to Talk pages. Instructions for signing are provided here.) — Saxifrage ✎ 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete early stage, G Hits. Wait a while. Someone is trying to push new keyword?! --MaNeMeBasat 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just take a look at the companies who recognize the term. You little wiki people think you know better than the collective thousands at these orgs put together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wisconsinmikew (talk • contribs) September 11, 2006.
• Speedy delete. Original research. Not notable topic. Also copyright infringement with information taken from the following url: http://www.jackbe.com/Resources/rea.php --Sleepyhead 09:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peta 09:53, 14 September 2006 (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.