- 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Open source 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another neologism created by bolting 2.0 onto the end of something. Does not appear to be notable, most likely OR. Artw (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Open source, if that's the case. -- ISLANDERS27 07:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can find no mention of this online, fails WP:NOR. MuffledThud (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, complete bollocks: The term "Open Source 2.0" is associated with the marrying of open source software and Web 2.0 applications. Yet, as the open source movement is considered a first mover in leveraging interactive information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web - Open Source 2.0 applies to the software platform that underlies many Web 2.0 successes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Strange neologism, this is. JBsupreme (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found exactly 3 WP:RSes on this: 2 were one-off uses/coinages by people being interviewed, the 3rd was the title of a Linux Journal article which I would guess (article wasn't FUTON-compliant) probably also used it as an informal neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2009 (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.