Deletion of Collaborative information seeking

Comment: Nominator's arguments are, at best, evidence for redirecting or merging; either we should keep this article or redirect it to social search.  Moreover, authors are welcome to cite their own works if said works have been properly published in peer-reviewed contexts, and the only reason we would delete a page that's safe in this way is if it were so heavily self-promotional that it qualified for speedy deletion as promotional or for  treatment; after looking over the article, I'm confident that it qualifies for neither of them.  Merging is a discussion that can be held separately; I have no opinion on it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Fails  and is pure 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROMO)

Comment: per  - ''What?'' Academic peer-reviewed research publications are not considered self-published, they're the |most reliable of all reliable sources. The guidelines against spam should not be used to delete coverage of scientific research, they're fundamentally different things. These two articles contain a respectable collection of references from different authors with a high count of citations. If there's a conflict of interest, the community's responsibility is to review and assess the credibility of each individual claim, not to sweep everything under the carpet. The reasons why this content may be non-neutral have not even been addressed at the article's talk page; deletion should be a last resort if it was impossible to |fix the problems, which seems unlikely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SOURCE||WP:IMPERFECT)