- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Employment 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism. The sources use the term very much in passing (or not at all) ; none of the references is actually about the concept and there is no indication that this is in fact a notable term. bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a proposed neologism used in different ways by different authors. The job search web sites use it to denote Web job search. John Zogby uses it refer to a trend towards temporary/part-time employment as a norm. A third author uses it to refer to crowdsourcing. No real commonalities here. All sources are wp:primary as each has its own definition. If it takes off as a commonly accepted notion in secondary sources or if several such sources decide to cover its current/multiple meanings then it may belong on Wikipedia, but that's not the case right now. Interesting read as a synthesis essay, but outside the scope of Wikipedia as is. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2.0. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Article's subject doesn't appear to have any significant mention in any reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 20:09, 3 September 2012 (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.