Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collaborative Entrepreneurship


 * 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. I do love the arguments that basically go something like "we should be ashamed, biting a new editor instead of helping him" but on the other hand add an "important note" to state that "and the new editor who nominated this article is a SPA". Apart from those amusing asides, consensus is clearly that the available sources are insufficient. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative Entrepreneurship

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertising, original research, essay. Nerfari (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — Nerfari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * At the time of this nomination, Nerfari has under 40 edits.Smallman12q (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator, please strike the Original research allegation, as it is false. Ikip (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok forget the Original research part. Nerfari (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - subject is a recognized and studied business method used in development, business and charities and is both notable and being discussed in contempory business circles1, scholarly papers2, government circles3. The article is not well-written but that has never been a reason to delete, someone should improve it. The page must be moved, however, to Collaborative entrepreneurship to correct capitalization.  fr33k man   -s-  18:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  fr33k  man   -s-  18:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I just tried to clean this up but didn't get very far. For one, there are no sources. For another, what on earth does "It puts each subject area in full perspective and then carefully selects and entrepreneurs globally the very best ideas the field has produced" mean? It scores so well on the buzzword bingo meter that I half suspect it was written by a marketing-speak generator. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Author started this at WP:AFC, then not wanting to improve it there after it was put on hold, started it in main space where it was speedied once, then recreated it again, and here we are. Fails [WP:V]] and WP:RS.  AK Radecki Speaketh  06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: it does seem like this is a potential subject for an article, but I still believe the current article is not suitable for wikipedia. Nerfari (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete while this seems like it may be important, little to none of this is verifiable. Lets  drink Tea 02:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is potential for an article here. Stanford University Press has published a book on the subject. . A Google books  and Google Scholar  search indicates that there is something for people to work on in creating an article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, then delete again, and delete once more just to be sure. This moves beyond bollocks and into bullshit territory: Through an ecosystem of businesses and citizen sector organizations, collaborative entrepreneurship leverages the critical strengths of each actor to transform markets and deliver essential products and services to low-income consumers. The result is hybrid social business models that leverage the strengths of both sectors to achieve both profits and social impact.  If you are going to misuse the English language this way, you shouldn't be allowed to speak it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure nonsense.--Sloane (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a collection of buzzwords with very little coherent meaning. I'd classify it as OR if it was translated from marketing speak to regular English. External links to ashoka.org throughout article text indicate this is some sort of spam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT NOTE: The nominator of this article is a WP:Single Purpose Account with 36 edits. Sock states:
 * "Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers...or participate in procedures like Articles for deletion"
 * Nerfari's third edit was to add this complex template to an article:  In those 36 edits, he has flawlessly added and argued 2 Afds.1 2  Ikip (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps he was an anon editor who decided to finally make an account, perhaps he forget his old password and decided it was simpler to make a new account, or perhaps his primary interest is in removing junk from Wikipedia. You really need to read WP:SPA closer, particularly the portions about assuming good faith. In fact, looking through his contributions, I don't even know what you might say his "single purpose" is; the articles he's nominated for deletion are in no way related. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Who was the author of this article originally? The revision history shows the nominator, when he first created the AfD, the Logs on this page show that administrator User:Akradecki moved it around, and deleted it several times. Ikip (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer, User:Ashokakshah a new editor with only 10 edits. No surprise there. Ikip (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A brief explanation as to the confusion: User:Ashokakshah first created this in the AfC area, and when it was put on hold, created it again rather than address the issues, and then created as a 3rd dupe in article space, but still with an AfC template. I initially speedied this version as a duplicate and was going to let the AfC version run its course, because at that time it wasn't deemed meeting article criteria (it still isn't, IMO). However, by that time another AfC regular had declined the version there, stating that it was a dupe of this version which was up for AfD. With that one declined, I elected to undelete this one and let the AfD run its course. A mess, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that the User:Ashokakshah was gaming the system to get this basic promo piece for a book into article space, where it doesn't belong.  AK Radecki Speaketh  14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Nominator states: "Original research" This is false. Please strike this claim nominator. 15 Articles on Google news, including A new concept of entrepreneurship: "The current buzz word is “collaborative entrepreneurship” (CE)" Washington Post, The Purchase Of a Lifetime. The book: Collaborative Entrepreneurship How Communities of Networked Firms Use Continuous Innovation to Create Economic Wealth from the esteemed Stanford University Press, 6900 google hits. As typical, the nominators' first and only edit to the page was to add a AfD tag, if the editor would have followed WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, and Notability which state: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." the nominator may have found these sources. Re: "Advertising" and "essay" accusation, the editor has 10 edits, with a little coaching, he could become an active member of the wikipedia community.  We could have helped him build this article up to meet and exceed all of our pleathora of guidelines.  But instead, the editor's user page when I went there had 3 warning templates and not a single "welcome". With treatment like this it any wonder that the Economist blames the drop of wikipedia on behavior like this? I could rewrite this article, but it is too late, it will be deleted because the delete editors above didn't bother to check sources before voting to delete, or help this new fledgingly editor.  Better it be userfied and the new editor can work on this page in relative peace, at least for a short period of time.   Ikip (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

*Delete Vapid vague management speak bullshit (and as my PhD was partly about organisational management, I've seen plenty). Could be covered in three lines in Social enterprise --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - the sources are dire, two were press releases (which I've removed) and the rest of the article reads as promotional material for the book that is the only source. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cleanup, as I said above I think there is potential for an article on this topic but if you still don't think the current content is worth keeping I'll trust your judgement. Nerfari (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a limited look earlier in the academic literature and the term seems to be used in a fairly wooly and interchangable fashion with social enterprise (which this article says it is a branch of) - I'd have no objection to merging the limited definition and single reference to there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Nerfari (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - on a quick search, the term seems to be used mainly in connection with this book; for the book it fails WP:SPAM and for any other use of the term, as Cameron Scott says just above, it is used in a fairly loose fashion and fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2009 (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.