Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jointness (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Richardcavell 03:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jointness

Previously deleted material, see first nomination. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: That nomination had nothing to do with the article now being discussed being deleted. This article was prodded and no one challenged the prod. The reason for prodding was Non-notable neologism. Kimchi.sg 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a US Sevices neologism, that is not even common across partner nations. If it does stay it can probably be summed up as

Jointness is a neologism coined by the US Services to describe cross service cooperation in all stages of the military processes, from research, through procurement and into operations. Nuttah68 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This entry should be cleaned up, not deleted. It is not Non-notable neologism as there are thousands of links on google/google scholar using this terminology. --AvivaS 09:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Jointness is not a neologism, Jointness in the form defined and used by the US Military is. Nuttah68 09:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: In this article's first nomination for deletion, the sole reason it was nominated was because it was linked to three other entries all of which cited material by a single author and therefore deleted for 'orignial research'. It is no longer linked to any other terms and it now sites material by the U.S. Army War College Library, an extremely reliable source. Jointness is a well known terminology used by many countries; it is definitely not original research or a Non-notable neologism. If you search the phrase on google, you will get thousands of entires. This material meets the relevant content criteria for Wikipedia and I do not think it needs to be deleted.--AvivaS 06:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:This term appears multiple times in reliable internet sources; it is definetly not a non-notable neologism and should not be deleted on this basis.Ispivak22 07:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.