Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BI 2.0

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 Delete. Nishkid64 01:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BI 2.0

BI 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Non notable neologism per WP:NEO Artw 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 2.0 per nomination. It runs short of actually admitting it's buzzword heavy. --Dennisthe2 00:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable buzz word. --Wildnox(talk) 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wholly non-notable neologistic buzz-word.--Anthony.bradbury 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete First they add lower-case i to the beginning of everything, now it's 2.0. I am curious to see what is next. WP:NEO. Orderinchaos78 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. -- Greaser 08:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the full phrase "Business Intelligence 2.0" gets only about 250 relevant ghits. However, "BI 2.0" gets 10,900 ghits. SkierRMH,09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. Something doesn't become notable just because you slap "2.0" on it. JIP | Talk 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article Business_intelligence independently refers both to the concept and its common use. Working in the field there is a need for a clear definition to avoid everyone and every vendor having their own. This article BI 2.0 is a dialog about that definition for that community. It is not a neologism in this field. The term is used and abused regularly, like it or not, having a discussion about the term, and a common definition is better than deletion. --racecarradar 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, unless sourced -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have modified the article to include external references to sources using the term BI 2.0. --racecarradar 04:36, 15 January 2007 (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.