Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collabrification

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗plicit 00:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

=[[:Collabrification]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Collabrification}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Collabrification}})

Article about non-notable neologism which seems to exist to promote a research direction from one specific research group. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:Delete: Not finding any sources that establish notability. There are some papers from Michigan, but they appear to be the researchers who invented this term and their papers promoting this research direction have very few citations. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: Back when I worked in the nonprofit sector, my colleagues and I used to compete to come up with the dumbest buzzword portmanteaus. I once suggested "collaboraction" until we learned it was a real thing. This is... not a real thing. This is some academics trying to make fetch happen. The sources do not support a WP:GNG, WP:NEO or WP:WORDISSUBJECT pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.