Deletion of Collaborative Entrepreneurship

Comment: Nominator states: "Original research" This is false. Please strike this claim nominator. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Collaborative+Entrepreneurship%22 15 Articles on Google news, including http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view_article.php?article_id=173361 A new concept of entrepreneurship: "The current buzz word is “collaborative entrepreneurship” (CE)" Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301828_4.html The Purchase Of a Lifetime. The book: http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=3525 Collaborative Entrepreneurship How Communities of Networked Firms Use Continuous Innovation to Create Economic Wealth from the esteemed Stanford University Press, http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Collaborative%20Entrepreneurship%22&sa=N&tab=nw 6900 google hits.As typical, the nominators' first and only edit to the page was to add a AfD tag, if the editor would have followed , , and Wikipedia:Notability which state: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."  the nominator may have found these sources.Re: "Advertising" and "essay" accusation, the editor has 10 edits, with a little coaching, he could become an active member of the wikipedia community.  We could have helped him build this article up to meet and exceed all of our pleathora of guidelines.  But instead, the editor's user page when I went there had 3 warning templates and not a single "welcome". With treatment like this it any wonder that the Economist blames the drop of wikipedia on behavior like this?I could rewrite this article, but it is too late, it will be deleted because the delete editors above didn't bother to check sources before voting to delete, or help this new fledgingly editor.  Better it be '''|userfied''' and the new editor can work on this page in relative peace, at least for a short period of time. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:BEFORE||WP:userfication)

Comment: then delete again, and delete once more just to be sure.  This moves beyond |bollocks and into bullshit territory: ''Through an ecosystem of businesses and citizen sector organizations, collaborative entrepreneurship leverages the critical strengths of each actor to transform markets and deliver essential products and services to low-income consumers. The result is hybrid social business models that leverage the strengths of both sectors to achieve both profits and social impact.''  If you are going to misuse the English language this way, you shouldn't be allowed to speak it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: on a quick search, the term seems to be used mainly in connection with this book; for the book it fails  and for any other use of the term, as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: Author started this at , then not wanting to improve it there after it was put on hold, started it in main space where it was speedied once, then recreated it again, and here we are. Fails WP:V and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for creation (WP:AFC||WP:RS)