Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Affinity Hub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wow...you guys are quick! You're correct, "Affinity Hub" is a relatively new term; however, it's not made up. While I agree, the source references are few, a master's thesis at UCLA and a leading Six Sigma consultancy whose clients can be found at: http://www.georgegroup.com/clients.php , the sources available are credible. Read the thesis: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:CwV3gqTgKPcJ:www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/ctr/ccp/JonCarterGenreFocus.pdf+%22affinity+hub%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3.

Had I been able to figure out how to provide a proper source citation previously, this would not have been deleted the first time.

The issue to ponder is this, simply because I lack familiarity with something does not amke it any less real. There is a clear difference between a social network and an affinity hub - Crystal Clear.

Google doesn't know everything. There are tons of things being discovered and invented today without reference. It does not reduce their viability or value simply because it's not referenced in Google yet.

Part of Wikipedia's value is that it provides a forum for discoveries in the global venacular. Terms like "Affinity Hub" is what Wikipedia is for. Part of the reason that it is not considered a "credible source" is because anyone can create or DELETE articles ad hoc, whether or not they are an authority on the subject matter.

To overlook a "new term" in the venacular simply because it is by nature "new" shows a shortsighted, very modern approach to life. Our world has changed. The advent of this medium provides a mechanism for acclerated change. Perhaps that which was thought to be is no longer.

Give this one time. A lot of the other deletes that I see from this same list of authors are ones with which I agree. It should be noted that this post is not an advertisement, nor an attempt at "soap boxing" as many of the others are. It is defining something that has been defined elsewhere.