Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Keeper | 76 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strong collaboration

Strong collaboration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I am somewhat confused by this article. I feel that this article might not be an notable neologism for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only sources are written by the person who coined the term. I do know that notability is one of the hardest things to fulfill for an article. I am sorry. Marlith T/C 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Try googling "strong collaboration" Mandsford (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The "strong collaboration" Obama uses [1] to write his speeches, or the "strong collaboration" that Ghana and China use to build hospitals [2], and 99% of the other GHits, are hardly related to the concept being referred to in this article. cab (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It's very interesting and as a topic ear to the heart of Wikipedians, but I see aught but primary sources or sources with insufficient independence or credibility. Potential merge or redirect, but aside from unrelated uses (e.g. between political campaigns or military units) there are only 480 hits about this specifically ("strong.collaboration sanger"). Targets could be collaboration, Larry Sanger, or Citizendium, but I'm not sure which would yield the least surprise. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dhartung. A neologism which has not been non-trivially discussed (in the sense it is defined here) by reliable sources intellectually independent of the creator. cab (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neogolism without reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2008 (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.