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The result was Withdrawn. (WP:NAC) The article is so changed since the initial nomination that the original nomination statement no longer applies. Subsequent decisions should be taken only with regard to the new state of the article. Withdrawing per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Fleet Command (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This article tries to make up a fictional brand called "Windows Live Office". There is no such thing as "Windows Live Office" (and this article also fails to provide a source to that effect) and therefore this forgery of brand names is direct violation of laws. You needn't worry about this articles contents: They are already included in Windows Live Skydrive and Office Web Apps. Fleet Command (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: An editor has moved the original article to Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, in an attempt to address the nominations concern but has created new concerns, discussed below. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirect. There may not have been a "Windows Live Office", but there was Microsoft Office Live which seems to be the actual subject of this sources cited in this article. Pending any explanation from other editors as to why this separate article might be appropriate, I'd suggest a redirect.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, I don't oppose with redirect but I don't know what is the good of a redirect either. It is definitely not a plausible typo, you see. As for the contents, they should go, per Wikipedia:Content forking. Fleet Command (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to look under the "Related articles" section of WP:CONTENTFORK. Just because two or more articles contain a significant amount of information in common with one another, does not make it content fork. --Damaster98 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, and here comes the main contributor of the article! You are wrong, dear sir! That would only be valid if you hadn't made up this funny fake name. But since the name is fake, the relation is also fake. The contents aren't related at all; they are exactly the same. Fleet Command (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why you seem surprised seeing that part of the instructions to nominate an AfD is to inform the creator of the article of the AfD nomination, and you did this yourself. My contribution here is just as important as any other authors. Back on topic, you cannot assert that just because the article title is not the "official branding", the actual subject of the article does not exist. In fact, if you had read the articles Office Web Apps and Windows Live Office, you'd notice the relationships AND differences between the two. The contents that are different between the two are outlined in my point below.
I'm not disagreeing with you that the title "Windows Live Office" is not the actual branding used by Microsoft to brand http://office.live.com . However, this service definitely exist and as such should not warrant an AfD for the article. I'm open for discussion for an alternative naming of the article. -Damaster98 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm not surprised. Second, I don't care what other articles have to say as long as there is not a source. After all, you wrote much of the other articles. Fleet Command (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
All the other articles (such as Office Web Apps) have references contained within. They are fact-based and have been sourced. Judging by your comment (throughout this entire conversation), I'm under the impression that you are prejudicing that everything I contribute on Wikipedia are non-sourced and are "made up" by myself. It would be great if you take a read of those other articles first before saying "there is not a source". Thank you. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not prejudiced. It is just a matter of WP:NPOV of your point of view as well as what I wrote below. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose or Rename. There's a few things the requestor's request above had been misleading:
While it may not be referred to as "Windows Live Office" by Microsoft, the exact same service the article being referred to is often branded as "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" [1]. This service definitely exist on http://office.live.com and is not a "made-up" service. It is listed as a separate service than SkyDrive on http://home.live.com/allservice (notice "Office" has its individual entry). As such, the most we should do is to rename the article. This is a discussion about the naming of the article, and definitely not a reason for AfD.
Office Web Apps refers to the technology underlying Windows Live Office. Office Web Apps by itself is a standalone product that can come as an add-on with Microsoft SharePoint Server to be individually installed on enterprise servers, or hosted as part of SharePoint Online. In both of these cases, these have nothing to do with Windows Live. In particular, the "Features" section of the current Windows Live Office article mentions features that are in no way mentioned in the Office Web Apps article due to the fact that they are unique to the Windows Live-specific service (e.g. Hotmail integration).
In addition, Windows Live Office is the service that is replacing Office Live Workspace - not Windows Live SkyDrive or any other service. As such, the "History" section of the article is specific to the Windows Live Office article, and this content is not covered by any other articles, and would be inappropriate to be included within any other articles.
As such, this is definitely not a case of content fork, and does not meeting any of the reasons for deletion on the WP:DEL policy. Reiterating myself, the reasons the requestor had raised should be at most about the naming of the article, and definitely does not contribute to the reason for AfD. --Damaster98 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't expect the main contributor of the article to vote otherwise! Still, what you say is pure nonsense that you made up! Where is your source? You have none. You made all these up! The fact is that the sources only mention two brand names: SkyDrive and Office Web Apps. There is no Windows Live Office. You also keep saying "as mentioned earlier". You made a terrible mistake mentioning those unreferenced nonsense earlier. Fleet Command (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The sources had been given in my points above, and within the articles themselves. Take a read of the Office Web Apps article, paragraph two and you'd find information about point 2a) above, and the source as well. Office Web Apps (the technology) in itself does not offer features such as version control, integration with Hotmail, security/login via Windows Live ID, or co-authoring/collaboration with other Windows Live users. These features are only available as part of the Windows Live Office (http://office.live.com) service, or you may call it "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", and not available as part of Office Web Apps for the enterprise, or Office Web Apps on SharePoint Online, Office 365...etc. --Damaster98 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hosted individually by various business via Microsoft SharePoint Server or Microsoft SharePoint Online
Each "service" is built upon the "technology" and adds its unique feature sets and functionalities. Thus it is inappropriate to say that the "service" is the same as the underlying "technology" (i.e. Windows Live Office (or whatever you want to call it) - the service - is not the same as Office Web Apps - the underlying technology). --Damaster98 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Whenever you stopped repeating your own personal opinion and introduced a real source, call me. Fleet Command (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you not see I've provided sources in everything I've said above? Take a read of this: Office Web Apps platform comparison overview - Microsoft Technet which was already referenced within the Office Web Apps article. If you would go about and do some research YOURSELF (and I honestly do not think it's too much effort given that there are already references within the articles themselves) that would be great. It would be great if you could be more specific exactly what sources you need (and don't say everything - there's enough links in the comments I've provided above). Your reply had been completely ignorant of what I have taken time and effort to write above. Here's a few more sources that I am repeating here for your convenience: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] If you want more please be more specific as to what you need explained or "sourced". I'd be utterly disappointed if you reply with another ignorant response without thoroughly reading any of the sources I have provided above. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion here and judging by your ignorant and offensive attitude I cannot foresee that happening. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no source to confirm that there is anything called "Windows Live Office". None of those sources confirm what you say about the service and the underlying technology as well as a mandate for something being missing in the middle that your fictitious Windows Live Office has to fulfill. Simply put: There is a web application called Office Web Apps that creates and edits office files, while there are web applications like SkyDrive, SharePoint and Workspace that interface with those files. The relation between these two group of services is akin to the relationship between Microsoft Office and Windows Explorer. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact your sources say that "Windows Live SkyDrive" and not some fictitious thing "is a part of Microsoft's Windows Live service that allow users to upload their Microsoft Office documents to a computing cloud and share them with other users. Users can also create, view and edit Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote documents from a web browser using the integrated Office Web Apps. The service utilizes Windows Live ID to limit access to the documents the user has uploaded, allowing them to keep the documents private, share with contacts, or make the files public." Fleet Command (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As I have said above, I agree with you that the naming of the article is incorrect, as it is not officially branded "Windows Live Office". You're right, reiterating what you said, there is a web application called Office Web Apps that creates and edits office files, and there's services like SkyDrive that provides cloud storage for these files. However, there's also another layer in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive) - and that's the web service located at http://office.live.com - and this service manages and organises these office files - and this is what this article (regardless of the naming) is about. One cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "SkyDrive", because as I have sourced using http://home.live.com/allservices and http://explore.live.com, Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office" (i.e. http://office.live.com) from "SkyDrive" (http://skydrive.live.com). One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps", as Office Web Apps (the web application) is also used by other web services like Docs.com (i.e. http://docs.com) or Facebook Messages (source: [12][13]) which are not associated with the web service located at http://office.live.com - as there are no integration between them at all - the "Office Web Apps" on Docs.com and Facebook Messages cannot be accessed via http://office.live.com or SkyDrive. There needs to be an article about the web service located in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive) - an article about the thing that's located at http://office.live.com. Whether you'd like to call it "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" as officially branded by Microsoft or anything else that's fine, but an article needs to exist to describe this service. --Damaster98 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we're going in circles.
You start a lot of your sentences with "You cannot say". But in all those cases, I can say and in fact I do say so.
You keep saying "there's also another layer in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive)" but I don't think so, don't believe so, don't see it in your sources and have no idea why you think there should be one such layer (and even if there is, why it should be exposed to user.)
Sometimes you speak outright against sources and yourself! You have thrice used the the term "underlying technology" in this discussion, but each time to refer to different things! And so it happens that these "underlying" things are all exposed to user (= not underlying) via the web browser! In addition, whereas you referred to Office Web Apps as an underlying technology, Microsoft refers to it as a Silverlight-based application.
Look, if you would like to just repeat yourself, you are welcome but I won't repeat myself again.
The "You" in "You cannot say" is not specifically directly at you, or any particular individual. I apologise for the misunderstanding and have corrected it to read "One cannot say" in my response above. However, in your response when you said "I don't think so, don't believe so" - this is purely your own personal opinion and just because you don't think so doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and I have sourced everything I have said in my response). I feel that you are very slow in understanding the subject matter and concepts here, and hence why we're going in circles. You say you don't think there's a layer between SkyDrive and Office Web Apps, then just answer one question - what is that service located at http://office.live.com? It is not "SkyDrive" (as Microsoft clearly distinguishes it from http://skydrive.live.com), and it's more than "Office Web Apps" (as it offers additional features like version history and integration with Hotmail - something not offered in other "Office Web Apps"-based services like Docs.com). Here's the three layers:
- Office Web Apps - creates and edit office files
- http://office.live.com - allow users to manage office files (i.e. manage document version history...etc.)
- SkyDrive - cloud storage to store office and other files
And I apologize for not understanding that "you" means "one". Now please provide source for every instance of "one cannot say"; because you are not a reliable source for what one can say or cannot say!
Your sources say:
• Office Web Apps - Creates and edit office files
• SkyDrive - A cloud storage to store office and other files and allows users to manage office files (i.e. manage document version history...etc.)
• http://office.live.com - Your sources do not say anything. How do you know it is not just a humble shortcut to SkyDrive? (After all, you are not creating separate articles for hotmail.com and mail.live.com).
You need to be able to read better FleetCommand - we're going in circles because of your failure to read what I wrote. Every sentence that began with "One cannot say" have a proper rationale AND source following on. I'll put it in table format if that helps you easier to comprehend:
Statement
Rationale
Source
1. One cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "SkyDrive"
2. One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps"
Because Office Web Apps (the web application) is also used by other web services like Docs.com (i.e. http://docs.com) or Facebook Messages. These other services (Docs.com, Facebook Messages) which also use Office Web Apps are not associated with http://office.live.com - there is no integration between them at all - the "Office Web Apps" on Docs.com and Facebook Messages cannot be accessed via http://office.live.com or SkyDrive.
I think statement #1 above quite clearly addresses your concern that "http://office.live.com is not a humble shortcut to SkyDrive". In fact, your analogy to Hotmail is totally incorrect - http://hotmail.com redirects to http://mail.live.com - they are the same thing, whereas if you go to http://office.live.com and http://skydrive.live.com they are totally different. One clearly reads "Office - Windows Live" as the title of the site, and the latter reads "SkyDrive - Windows Live" as the title of the site. --Damaster98 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Office: View, edit, and share Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote documents from almost anywhere using Microsoft Office Web Apps on SkyDrive. Learn more.
The source distinguishes two services: Office Web Apps and SkyDrive; no mention of a third service. Clicking on the word "Learn more" takes you to your next source. (Read below.)
explore.live.com/office-web-apps: On title bar, the word "Office" is highlighted, while the large title on the middle reads: "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive". As you can see, office refers to Office Web Apps. If that is not enough, the distinguishes two services:
Get Started: Get online with Windows Live SkyDrive, then upload your Microsoft Office files and share them with others. Create or edit Office files online even if you don’t have Office on your PC.
Work from virtually anywhere With Office Web Apps, you can work on your Microsoft Office files virtually anywhere there's an Internet connection. Access your Office files in SkyDrive from supported web browsers.
You said: Because Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office" from "SkyDrive". But as you see, Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office Web Apps" from "SkyDrive"!
right|110pxNext, you said: "One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps"" because other services also host Office Web Apps! But have you forgotten that besides other web service providers, Windows Live also host Office Web Apps?! If that is not enough, see the included screenshot of Microsoft Word Web App: The URL reads cid-0ee0f5c6f873726f.office.live.com/view.aspx
You have not realized three things:
That URLs are merely access helpers and do not constrain web services. Even in Wikipedia, there are sometimes multiple URLs to one thing. For instance File:Bing logo.svg can be accessed via [17] or [18] or [19] or [20]. Likewise, the same thing on SkyDrive can be accessed from two different URLs. For example: [21] (office.live.com) and [22] (skydrive.live.com)
In Wikipedia, Verifiability is what matters not Original Research made from one's own point of view. In other word: One is not authorized to write something in Wikipedia for which one provides a "Rationale" column in table! The fact that you are forced to invent a fictitious title like "Windows Live Office" is enough evidence that what you write is synthesis of published material that advances a position and therefore not allowed in Wikipedia.
That every article in Wikipedia must be notable (received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources); otherwise it is merged or deleted. The subject "that specific copy of Office Live App that is integrated in Windows Live SkyDrive" is specifically not notable, hence it is merged into Windows Live SkyDrive and Office Web App.
No, FleetCommand. On both home.live.com/allservices and explore.live.com/office-web-apps, as you yourself have quoted above on both instances, "Office" here refers to "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" (as one thing), which is the service located at office.live.com. You're taking your own personal interpretation here and trying interpret that as simply "Office Web Apps" neglecting the entire title as a whole.
As such, Statement #1 above means Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)" from "Windows Live SkyDrive".
Next, you say "But have you forgotten that besides other web service providers, Windows Live also host Office Web Apps?". There you have it - Windows Live host Office Web Apps, Docs.com also host Office Web Apps, Facebook Messages will also host Office Web Apps, and enterprises can also host Office Web Apps on their own SharePoint servers. As such "Office Web Apps" is a browser-based application hosted by multiple services, and hence "Office Web Apps" is not the same as "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)", they're two separate layers as supported and sourced by Statement #2 above. Your screenshot merely proves the point that it is a screenshot of Word Web App from "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)" - I can similarly show a screenshot of Word Web App on Docs.com.
In response to your three things:
1. I am perfectly aware of this, and as such the URL itself is not used a source for Statement #1 above. Rather, I have used official Microsoft-owned websites as sources to demonstrate the point stated by Statement #1 above.
2. Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability, No Original Research or Synthesis applies to "all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". It does not apply to discussion pages such as this one where I am simply trying to explain concepts, rather than using it as sources or references in the actual article itself. As such other than the article title "Windows Live Office" which I admit is incorrectly titled, there is nothing in the actual article Windows Live Office that attributes to Original Research or Synthesis. As such, I'm happy for the dispute against the naming of the article, however the notability of the article is what should be discussed here (which leads to point 3 below).
3. I have demonstrated notability of the article (i.e. the topic "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive") in my response to Pnm below. I am happy to include these into the article itself at a later time.
Furthermore, I am disgusted by the fact that when you wrote "The fact that you are forced to invent a fictitious title like Windows Live Office is enough evidence that what you write is synthesis of published material that advances a position", you are asserting that just because I incorrectly named one article title that everything else I write on Wikipedia is a result of synthesis. Generalisation much FleetCommand? --Damaster98 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
2. What? Are you under the impression that Windows Live Office is not an article? Or are you under the impression only because AFD is not an article, you can use as many original research here as you like to secure a KEEP verdict and then leave the article as is?
3. Yes, thanks for proving notability. (Although one can argue that you proved the notability of SkyDrive not "Windows Live Office", per last sentence of WP:NTEMP, but I don't.) However, still the issue of the fake brand name is not resolved. It is fake and must be removed. Where the content goes does not concern me for the time being; although I probably come along and argue for it to be merged to SkyDrive because of contextual similarity, overlap and article size.
1. I stand corrected and there are no contradiction in my statements. You need to understand that "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" is "office.live.com". They are same thing and it is the topic we're discussing about. "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", or "office.live.com" (whichever way you prefer to call it), remains a different layer from "Windows Live SkyDrive (skydrive.live.com)" and "Office Web Apps". This is demonstrated and well-supported by sources indicated in Statement 1 and Statement 2 in the table I provided above.
2. First of all, I have always recognised Windows Live Office is an article, and as I've said before, there are no original research nor synthesis within that article. Your accusation of "synthesis" is directed at the "Rationale" column in the table I gave above, within this "discussion" namespace. Please understand that in a "discussion page" like this, the Wikipedia policy "Synthesis" do not apply. No reliable secondary source is ever going to read "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is notable on Wikipedia" - you always have to support your argument using synthesis of primary and secondary sources. A common example of using synthesis on "discussion pages" is to use the number of Google hits to support a position. To make it clear to administrators - there are no original research nor synthesis in the Windows Live Office article namespace.
3. Since the requestor for this AfD has agreed that notability of the article in question has been established, I think we should be at a position to close this AfD. As evidenced by the sources I have given below to Pnm, the reliable secondary sources specifically relates to "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" (the topic in question), not other instances of "Office Web Apps" (such as those on Docs.com or SharePoint) nor "Windows Live SkyDrive". From FleetCommand's response above, the requestor of this AfD agreed that this is only a matter of changing the naming of the article and I have no objections to this suggestion.
1. You STILL have not realized that URLs are means to an end, not web applications. You still say office.live.com is this or office.live.com is that, despite that fact that I clearly showed that what you find on office.live.com is sometimes SkyDrive ([[23]) and sometimes Office Web Apps ([24]) and despite the fact office.live.com plays no part in your article. Honestly, what are you driving at?
2. ...Or are you under the impression only because AFD is not an article, you can use as many original research here as you like to secure a KEEP verdict and then leave the article as is?...
3. Wrong! You didn't solve the problem; you just made it worse. Now, unreferenced nonsenses like "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive provides the same basic functionality as Windows Live SkyDrive" fill the article. Sourced statements are even worse. Statement "this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50MB" has a source but that source contradicts the statement outright. (The source, which must be retrieved through Web Archive, talks about SkyDrive.) I once thought that the article must be deleted because its contents are merely Content forking. But now, I think it must be deleted because it is pure nonsense. Even if it is corrected I still do not see why Office Web Apps and Office Web Apps on SkyDrive should have separate articles of their own.
4. You have failed to understand one last thing: Notability, content forking and all other policies here are also means to accomplish Wikipedia's mission: To provide our readers with accurate and reliable information about significant subjects in the most effective manner. What you did is in conflict with this mission.
1. What are you driving at? Your inability to comprehend is unbelievable. I will not waste time anymore trying to explain to you that "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" is "office.live.com" - the topic in discussion, which is distinct from "Office Web Apps" and "Windows Live SkyDrive" as supported by Statements 1 and 2 in the table above. We're going in circles because of your inability to comprehend what I wrote above. I have provided sufficient explanation above for anyone to understand.
2. The synthesis I have provided on this AfD namespace are simply used to support Statements 1 and 2 above, which are in turn used to support my argument. I do not foresee Statements 1 and 2 above to be published within the actual Article namespace in discussion (neither is anything else discussed here). Now, WP:NOR states that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources". The Article in discussion here does not contain any of such original research or synthesis, and as such does not violate Wikipedia policy.
3. First, I have not made a change to the article. Second, so you think it must be deleted? Since when is this about what you think? Third, Office Web Apps and Office Web Apps on SkyDrive should have separate articles of their own because of a well sourced-supported Statement 2 in the table above.
4. Your accusation of Conflict of Interest is completely ungrounded, and I take that with utmost offense. A friendly reminder per WP:Conflict of interest that please "do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."
Come now, dear Damaster98, give it a rest. All this juvenile vilification only destroys your excellent reputation in Wikipedia. And what would you get in return? An article that says Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is integrated in Hotmail and uses Office Web Apps! Until now, we've settled our previous disputes in a very friendly manner. Can't we just get along without calling each other names and taking offense? And what would you lose if this article gets deleted? All its contents are already on Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I have not called you nor anyone names. Second, you have launched a series of false accusations against me personally (including but not limited the accusation of COI above), and it is within my right to defend myself. Let's set that record straight. --Damaster98 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirect - to Office Web Apps or another similar article if one exists, otherwise, DeleteWikiManOne (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Windows Live SkyDrive#Windows_Live_Office. The it exists / it doesn't exist argument is tedious to follow and somewhat irrelevant. Where are the reliable, secondary sources? The only one mentioned above was eWeek article, and it doesn't mention Windows Live. There aren't any reliable secondary sources in Windows Live Office which are post-transition from Office Live Workspace. This WindowsITPro article says the replacement for Office Live Workspace was Office Web Apps integration in SkyDrive, and http://explore.live.com/office-web-apps calls the service "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive." The topic is Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, and lacks reliable sources to substantiate its notability on its own. --Pnm (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy to locate and include additional reliable secondary sources into the article. --Damaster98 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd change my recommendation if you provide sources here which demonstrate notability. --Pnm (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are some reliable secondary sources to support the notability of "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive":
Notice that all articles specifically talks about "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", rather that other services which also uses "Office Web Apps" such as Docs.com or the SharePoint version which can be self-hosted by enterprises.
Please let me know if there are additional sources that you'd like me to provide to demonstrate notability. Thanks! --Damaster98 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. A I'm satisfied with Telegraph and eWeek. (PC Mag is unsubstantial; the others are probably not reliable sources.) --Pnm (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep per reliable sources located by Damaster98. --Pnm (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Objection: The article now talks nonsense. Now, unreferenced nonsenses like "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive provides the same basic functionality as Windows Live SkyDrive" fill the article. Sourced statements are even worse. Statement "this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50MB" has a source but that source contradicts the statement outright. (The source, which must be retrieved through Web Archive, talks about SkyDrive.) These two are just examples. Almost the entire article (except History section) is like that. Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to add the "ref-improve" or "cleanup" tag. These are not reasons for an AfD. --Damaster98 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yeah? I think the suitable tag is {{db-g1}}. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And it's still all about what you think. --Damaster98 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the clarification. I updated the nomination to reflect the new concern. The new concern is that the article now reads:
"This service [Office Web Apps on SkyDrive] provides the ability to: [~snip~] Allow users to share the documents and have multiple users simultaneously co-author Excel and OneNote documents directly within the web browser using Office Web Apps"!
In which way does that sentence you've quoted above meets CSD:G1? --Damaster98 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sentences do not meet CSD; articles do! (I'm not nitpicking; get the technical point.) The sentence above, like the rest of the article, is patent nonsense. It says: "Office Web Apps uses Office Web Apps"! So does the rest of the article. It says: Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is integrated in Hotmail! "The service also integrates with Microsoft Office 2010 where users may save their files directly onto Windows Live SkyDrive." How can Office Web Apps on SkyDrive be integrated into Office? (Wow! Office getting "integrated" into Office!) And the result of this integration is that Office 2010 can now upload to SkyDrive? Don't you think it is actually SkyDrive that is "integrated" into Office 2010?
All these nonsense would have made perfect sense if you hadn't changed your philosophy of 3-layered-model and the article was still named "Windows Live Office". (Although, no such thing as "Windows Live Office" exist.)
The article doesn't remotely meet CSD G1. --Pnm (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree! It far surpasses patent nonsense and falls within the purview of ultra-patent nonsense! It says Office Web Apps on SkyDrive lets you upload to Hotmail, uses Office Web Apps and is integrated into Microsoft Office 2010! Obviously, you should read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense.
All references to liveside.net in the article has been replaced. FYI I do not own liveside.net nor did I publish any of the references. Deadlinks have also been replaced with working links. As such there is no longer the issue of Wikipedia:Verfiability (self-published sources).
The issue of Verifiability is still not resolved. Now, the article outright fails verification. For example "Hence similar to SkyDrive, this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50 MB" is not stated in your source. Your source says "SkyDrive" and not Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, provides such storage. Even if we assume that you are right, then the issue of WP:CONTENTFORKING comes up yet once again. As another example, Paul Thurrot has never said that the same copy of Office Web Apps that is hosted on SkyDrive is the one that is also hosted on Hotmail. Fleet Command (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirect: Windows Live Office is a valid search term so keeping as a redirect is logical. —MikeAllen 10:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The subject of this discussion is the moved article, Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, not the redirect Windows Live Office. I'm sorry for introducing that confusion. --Pnm (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (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.
![[17]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bing_logo.svg){kind=link}