Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recruitment 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. Neologism.'''. - Philippe 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment 2.0

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

neologism at best, uncited (and possible uncitable), unnecessary article. NMChico24 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete 1.0 More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO; only "source" in article is a blog. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO; and per not being verified with a reliable source.-- S R X -- Latino Heat  02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - mixing RSS and job openings is notable? --T-rex 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Week Keep - This article has been through speedy and PRODs over the last couple of weeks, and just about survived. I've added back in some references that a bot rather unhelpfully pulled out. They're both from what I would call reliable third party sources, though others may disagree... --Ged UK (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references that the bot removed make this look very much like spam.  2.0?  Give me a break. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, Recruitment 2.0 is a new term, please just type in "Recruitment 2.0" into Google and see how many references you get, there are too many to cut and paste here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.191.182 (talk) 06:25, 8 July 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.