Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Alternatives
The article obviously has some serious quality problems (grammar, organization, markup, |style), but it doesn't appear unsalvageable.   Some serious copy-editing could fix it up.  It seems like some legitimate sources have been added.  Does not seem like typical spam; the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_Alternatives&oldid=227489483 initial version had no external references at all, and the current links appear varied (i.e., not promoting anything specific).  I'm somewhat concerned that {{user|MatthiasKnab}} and {{user|Hedgewiz}} might be the same person, but perhaps that person |didn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia accounts.  In my book,  violations alone don't automatically mean all contributed articles must be deleted.  I'm most concerned with the actual subject matter.  If the term is so new that it's not well-defined, that suggests it might be |too new for an encyclopedia article.  I also find most of the cited usage is casual mention of the idea, not a formal treatment or study of the concept.  Assuming it is well-defined, is there enough for a |full article?  |Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Perhaps the concept should be merged into some more general article.  Ultimately, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, which is why I can't come down firmly one way or the other
— User:DragonHawk, 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:MOS||WP:AGF||WP:SPA||WP:NEO||WP:SIZE||WP:DICT (Wikipedia:Manual of Style)