Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0 (second nomination)
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
— User:Fairsing, 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:V (Wikipedia:Verifiability)