Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entrepreneur 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Entrepreneur 2.0

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. This is a non-notable neologism. As the article states: "the term is very new to the late date of May 2010." De728631 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete — non-notable and barely(=not) used in professional conversations. Zhernovoi (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Badly. Not used in any RS. Puffy fish penguins 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as not meeting notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable neologism. Also appears to be self promotional.  Verkhovensky (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also patent nonsense that says exactly nothing: ...a term that refers to a new generation of entrepreneurs and suggests a substantial change in the characteristics of now-days (2010) entrepreneurs called Google Generation. Name used for a 2nd type of entrepreneur is much more agile that unlike business entrepreneurs and more common and more traditional training or a type of entrepreneurial thinking less dynamic.  It goes on and on that way, too.  No one need be bothered with agile, dynamic thinking after chlorpromazine was discovered. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as nonsense and per WP:SNOW.   talk 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Badly per Puffy (what a delightfully succinct !vote) as a protologism that fails badly at attempts to meet our standards for inclusion. Heather (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2010 (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.