Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability 2.0

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term. No reliable and independent sources discuss it. It's just a phrase used in some book. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable neologism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was excessive focus in the book, and not in the concept that as you will see evolves and is even consolidated as a strategy of some companies. I Removed therefore the specific references to the content of the book and added more references to show the usage of the term. Quintovp — Quintovp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Cant see how it can survive when it is a neologism and not a particularly well known one. It is promotional by its very defintion, by using business speak which is anathema to Wikipedia, people who are not notable, and dodgy references, which alone would get it deleted. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it mentions it 6 times in a 5 sentence article, which is an example of NLP and is clearly promotional spam. scope_creep^Talk 15:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, it is not "just a phrase used in some book", it is the title of a book that has analyzed the confluence of to currents that braid together, the web 2.0, and the awakening to sustainability. It deepens into the development of the concept, triggering discussions and awareness in this respect, as confirmed by the links already mentioned. If you see my recent contribution today the concept seems to have finally entered the agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luesnaola (talk • contribs) — Luesnaola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak delete. The term does appear to be used, but whether it was really coined by this book, I am unsure. That claim is unreferenced. Then we have a definition sourced to a press release. Then another definition sourced to a minor trade magazine ([1]). And a CITEBOMB of 'works that use this term'. I think this merits a WP:TNT. The topic may be notable, but the execution is terrible; this should be written from scratch using reliable, academic sources. PS. See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto van Peborgh (2nd nomination) - article claims he is the author of this term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an obvious enough term to coin that it's doubtless been invented many times independently, and the different coinages won't necessarily all have the same meaning. It's not our job to sort out that kind of thing; we're not lexicographers tracing the history of a word through primary sources. Also, frankly, the sources are pretty garbage. A LinkedIn blog post? SlideShare? WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.