Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solutioneer


 * 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. --Daniel Olsen 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Solutioneer


While a term created by Nokia for one of its marketing campaigns is certainly going to attract some attention and might win an industry award or two, it nonetheless falls under the domain of made up in the board room one day and is a neologism. Gets a decent number of search hits, but doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic in nature, as there's really no context outside of its internal use at the company. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information seems to apply as well. Delete. -- Kinu t /c  08:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, made up at Nokia one day. J I P  | Talk 09:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't appear to be notable outside of the (very) narrow context of "Information Technology Services Marketing". It got a "Diamond Award" for "Sharpening Competitive Differentiation", which is meaningless advertising-speak. Demiurge 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per nom. Arctic-Editor 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure you don't have that backwards? --Wafulz 16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources (fails WP:V), it's made up (fails WP:NFT)) and it doesn't seem very notable at all, so delete. Jayden54 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Arctic-Editor nominator. Tonywalton | Talk 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the term will start to be used as the world needs solutions rather than product push. The play on Engineer and Marketeer is great.(UTC) — Calce (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Being a clever play on words is not one of the criteria for inclusion. -- Kinu t /c  07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See our Wikipedia is not a crystall ball and No original research policies for our policies on things that "will start to be used". If you want to make an argument for keeping, you must cite sources to show that the concept of a solutineer has already been researched, documented, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it can be shown to pass WP:NEO. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per nominator; borderline spam, and a breathlessly vacuous neologism. The so called "business use" of solution is itself a supremely overconfident neologism, and this only compounds the error. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:15, 28 November 2006 (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.