Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Service 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 as a non-notable neologism for which no independent reliable sources about the term were offered. GRBerry 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Service 2.0[edit]

Few if any Google results for phrase; non-notable; autobiography Subwayguy 00:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN neologism, WP:AUTO violation (check the username of the article's creator). -- Kicking222 01:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm definitely biased to keeping it, since I wrote the article and since I'm the "inventor" of this term. If the submission isn't neutral enough, I would happy to work with you all to make it neutral. Nevertheless, I do think that the term does accurately describe the great new Web 2.0-based projects out there today (not just my own, but other projects like Kiva.org). The mission of these projects is clearly social stewardship focused--yet we can't quite lump them with the broad term of "community service" because they are truly driven by technology. Anyway, I don't make the rules here, so my feelings won't be hurt if you all decide to axe this. Sooner or later though, this term (or some permutation) will become accepted by the mainstream. Thanks, everyone! Ebahnx 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)ebahnx[reply]

While we understand your bias, we must suggest you adhere to Wikipedia policy. Please see this one for notability, and this one for the Wikipedia take on neologisms. According to this article we're writing in, the issue isn't one of neutrality, it's a case of the fact that it non-notable, and as is demonstrated by the sheer lack of google hits (though not a reliable source, nevertheless), very much a neologism. As such, I cast Delete. --Dennisthe2 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it necessary to point out the problems of conflict of interest. --Dennisthe2 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the resources--definitely want to follow the rules. Ebahnx 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ebahnx (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete own research, NN Fabhcún 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The articles author admitted that he made up the term, meaning it is purely OR and has a COI. However, I would like to thank the author for being polite and recognizing that we do have policies regarding this sort of thing. --The Way 20:35, 25 December 2006 (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.