Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0

The first time this article was noted for deletion, the rationale was it was not notable enough and buzzwordy. It continued along as a stub, and there were requests for expansion.

The contributions I made fulfilled the request for expansion, summarized academic articles, brought in new citations, and took explicit steps to remove spam (see Tools Section of discussion). I believe the contributions I have made are neutral. Most of the user contributions have been.

Keep in mind while evaluating if this is advertising that this topic is based upon field research within enterprises, so inevitably involves mention of companies. One process note is that having access to the deleted article's history would help this be a more constructive conversation. If the article was given time for additional edits by other users, I'm sure it would have grown into a great resource. Rossmay

history undelete
I made a history undelete request. Would like to look into the rationale for the initial deletion, how the article got restarted and build a case for the merit of the article with the most latest content Rossmay 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See User:Rossmay/Enterprise_2.0 -- undeleted history and content there.

unsure of rules
I was expecting there to be a discussion and some sort of consensus process - look at the "pro" and "con" aspects of the "web 2.0" article. Personally, I'd like to see this article develop with some "meat" given that I have been researching on my own how individual companies are -- or are not -- adopting "web 2.0" based systems such as blogs and wikis. "Enterprise 2.0" may not be a label that appeals to all but there's some meat here that should be thrashed out in the open.

NOte that this is also my first time use of editing in Wikipedia - I was not aware that the "delete" process was so straightforward. Reminds me that in an enterprise application ("enterprise 2.0"?) of wiki technology a disgruntled employee shouldn't be able to go in and just wipe something out ... or not? - DDMcD, Aug 16, 2006.


 * Sorry to come back to you so late...as you can see on my userpage, I'm not really able to contribute right now; as to your query: bring this up at Deletion review; the pertaining article was speedy deleted by me as a recreated article which went through Afd. I still think the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article. Lectonar 14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a recreated article, considering the diff b/t before and after content.  Just b/c an article was once a deletable stub doesn't mean that noone can ever create something under that title without a deletion review.  +sj + 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lectonar: Thanks for the info, though I do not yet understand the reference to "speedy deleted" and "Afd." ddmcd 19 August 2006.
 * Sorry: speedy deleted see here, and Afd means that this article went through Articles for deletion, as it is archived on the project page here. Cheers Lectonar 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This wasn't a proper application of speedy deletion guidelines. The new article was vastly different form the old; it should at most suffer through a new AFD, and it might be polite to start by discussing with the article editors on the article talk page, since it is being so actively edited by multiple users (deleting a page under active development for "non-notability" is both rude and counterproductive... just explain what the notability guidelines are and suggest how they might be fulfilled by better research and referencing).  +sj + 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)