Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active inertia

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active inertia

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

Is this a solid business term, or a non-notable neologism? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per coverage in The Economist and Harvard Business School. And let's remember WP:BEFORE, took only a moment to find these. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonathanwallace. It took me a moment between teaching classes to add the sources to the article. Off to class! Bearian (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into larger article. This appears to simply be a dictionary definition. See WP:DICT] I presume there is a larger article about the general overall concepts, of which this is a part. If such an article exists, then this should be merged into it. Otherwise, it needs to go over to Wiktionary. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a word made up by Donald Sull. The two references say, in essence, "Here is a word made up and used by Donald Sull". If and when other people start to use the word in their own books and articles, then it'll be a real word. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the same reasons I previously provided. Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Montanabw (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
Keep The Economist demonstrates notability. If the title seems unclear than it can be changed to inflexibility (business), conservatism (business), &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem isn't the title, the problem is that this is nothing but a dictionary definition, and as such needs to go to wiktionary or else be expanded to something far more than a definition, or, if a larger article on related concepts exists, then merged into that. That it exists isn't enough for an encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DICTDEF and point made by Herostratus, unless it can somehow be expanded beyond that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points raised by Herostratus. This article has no real prospect of being expanded beyond the two vague sentences it currently has. Reyk _YO! 08:28, 3 March 2011 (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.