Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse innovation


 * 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   keep. no one has supported deletion here JForget  00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverse innovation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. No sign of this being used by anyone except the two people who came up with it and one of their employers.No independent sources use this term, unless you count interviews with its two coiners. Hairhorn (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a neologism. Several uses at this Google Scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DId you actually look at that search? While there are many results for the term "reverse innovation", it's not used in a consistent way, and an admittedly quick look through the search results doesn't come up with anything resembling the meaning that's given in the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced, well referenced, well written, notable by the sheer volume of people touched by the concept in daily life--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? In fact almost none of the sources are indepedent, third party sources. And while people may be "touched" by technology, I see no evidence at all that anyone other than a couple people is using this term to talk about it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find it rather funny that a management idea like "reverse innovation" has an easier time being published in Harvard Business Review than it does in Wikipedia! Christiansarkar (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, if HBR isn't an independent third-party source, nothing is! :-) Christiansarkar (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. The entry credits three people with coining this phrase; they are the same three people who wrote the Harvard Business Review piece. So it's not independent in any real sense. It's perfectly good as a reference of where it was coined, but it provides no evidence at all that anyone else is using it, and that is the main issue in this AfD: whether this is a notable neologism or not.


 * The other important distinction that's not being grasped is that, while HBR is a publisher of original research, Wikipedia is not. So getting a paper published in HBR doesn't justify a similar entry in Wikipedia; an journal and an encyclopedia are two different things. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I understand now that others must use this phrase as well. If I could link to 20-30 letters on reverse innovation sent in to the Harvard Business Review, would that help advance the cause? The idea of reverse innovation is new, and as such has not been used widely in other academic publications - yet!  Thanks again for your clarification. Christiansarkar (talk) 22:02, 29 October 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.