Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office 2.0 (2nd 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 No Consensus leaning towards Keep with the sources found by DGG. Davewild (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Office 2.0

Office 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced Neologism. Is this original research? Appears to lack notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment doesn't it mean the paperless office? (or the computerized office, depending on era) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment i started it as a link target: lots of things relate to it (comment above), and for this reason it seems to need a page // JohnPritchard (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article calls it a neologism and the only source in the article is a blog. --Son 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There seem to be an increasing number of sources: an annual conferences[1], a related podcast [2], an apparently unrelated article in internet News [3], and, most significantly an article in InfoWorld ""Google, Microsoft describe next-gen 'Office 2.0' " It is also being used as a trademark for a GNOME-based Mac 10.4 suite of applications [4]. I think at this point it is more than a neologism, and the Infoworld article is sufficient to support it. Not really my subject--just what I could find quickly. DGG (talk) 09:39, 5 December 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.