Deletion of Enterprise 2.0 (second nomination)

Comment: WP:NEO|Neologism that fails .  Probably is also in violation of , or at minimum ignores .  A mention of the term in the Web 2.0 article might be appropriate if appropriately sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:CITE)

Comment: Glad you see both Ziff Davis blogs as reliable sources, here is a post by http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=57 Dion Hinchcliffe on Enterprise 2.0 and one by http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3226 Farber using the term -- neither are referring to this Article.  Don't get personal.  Above there are requests for more sources, this is a discussion, and I'm doing the research to fulfill the request.  And thanks for challenging me, otherwise, I might not have found the Hinchcliffe post, which certainly meets the criteria for 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: for Professor McAfee.  Thank you for your input into the discussion and for attempting to understand the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  To help out here, citing your own blog does not help establish |Verifiability.  And as to the Business Week article, the article itself is not about the term "Enterprise 2.0", but about "Web 2.0".  The "Enterprise 2.0" term receives two trivial mentions in that article, one of which is derisive of the term:  "Despite all the activity so far, it's still early days for this phenomenon some techies (who can't help themselves) call Enterprise 2.0."  This quote indicates that even Business Week doubts the validity of the term.  So, overall, what do we have here?An academic at a respected institution attemps to coin a new term in an article published in a respected journal (SMR).  Fine, but all this means is that there is a new neologism on the block.The same academic starts promoting the term on his blog.  Fine again, but does not establish verifiability of the term.Other blogs pick up the term.  Nothing wrong with this, but these are very weak sources for verifiability according to . There is anecdotal use of the term by people who work for various software companies.  Ok, but again does not pass . No other academics (that I have seen cited here, at least) have started to use the term in their own research. No mainstream business publications have published a non-trivial article regarding the term (that I have seen cited here).  The BusinessWeek mention is trivial, and vaguely derisive at that. The academic begins to campaign to get readers of his blog to come to Wikipedia and "vote" to keep the article in this AFD ("every vote counts").  But voting is explicitly *not* the purpose of an AFD discussion. Several new WP editors consequently show up to "vote" in this discussion, several anonymously, several of whom have never edited Wikipedia before.  Almost none of these postings make a coherent argument using Wikipedia criteria (notability, verifiability, etc.):  some because they are new and don't understand these, and others don't even try, they just "vote".Also, because you potentially stand to gain personally if this term wins currency in the business community (respect among your peers, consulting engagements, etc.), you are inherently biased on the topic.  So, although I respect your position and your passion for this subject, your comments here, and those of your blog readers can't overcome the fact that this term fails .  I wish you well personally and if your term does become legitimately verifiable as per  in the future (or additional citations are posted here), I will gladly support the inclusion of this term in the encyclopedia.  But for now, it just doesn't pass muster
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: Wood83, while I understand your thoughts, the arguement 'Because of Article X, then Article Y..' does not work here. Yes there are hundreds of articles that do not follow wikipedia's rules and as you see by the AfD logs, by the end of the day, dozens are removed. The thing is, nothing states that if I 'vote' delete on this afd, that I have to go out and make an AfD for all the other articles like this that fail any of the rules. If you found some, then by all means, make and afd for them! They are most likely subjects for deletion, yet no one has taken the time to start an AfD on them. The problem is that some of those slang terms that you have found do pass  and ...Enterprise 2.0 does not as of now. Yes, wikipedia has strict rules reguarding articles and they are all easily found. The talk pages for those rules are the best place to start. Though the three pillars of wikipedia are not subject to editor debate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NEO)

Comment: While I can respect the feelings that some editors have on this article, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites or saying the term isn't used. It isn't about if the term has a huge following or not.  It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules.  Let me help out a bit so you understand.  The Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a stand-alone basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes. The problem with the google searches are that they also include blogs, forums, and other links that are not accepted by wikipedia's policies as sources (and quite a few users forget to do quotation marks around the words to make sure it is a focused search for that exact term).  The real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be |Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be |original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims of the author(s).  It must also have a |neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must |cite it's notability with |reliable sources and be must be |encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet , some sections of , does not follow the guideline of  or . The biggest violation beyond not citing reliable sources, is |neologism. ''The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate''  and ''The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.''.  Following this, ''Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from |reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.''.  So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. More over '' Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.'' So when the time comes that this term does have citations that rely on books and papers that have articles/sections about the term, then the article can be recreate. As far as personal thoughts, ''An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase |Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.''  I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:ENC||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:NEO||WP:RS||WP:OR)