Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-nomading

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. Sandstein 07:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomading

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Maybe he wanted to do something in good-faith but this is pure nonsense and gibberish to me, written as if writing its advantages, disadvantages and why it came about, I would ask for CSD but cant find a criterua Varun FEB2003 11:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. incomplete and needs work, but the definition in the first sentence is perfectly clear, and there seem to be references. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you seeing references? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google hits alone are not a good measure of notability, but "co-nomading" and "conomading" together turn up less than 200 hits, including Wikipedia clones, and none of them are remotely reliable sources. Remote work is already an article, and it's possible there's a notable subtopic along the lines described in this article, but this is definitely not it. Of the links in the article, one is for an event that took place the day after this article was created (what a coincidence), one is neither reliable nor even mentions this term, one would be reliable (HBR) but again doesn't mention this term, and the other is a company website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears in current form against guideline/policy (WP:NOTDICT) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.