Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ostrich strategy

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich strategy[edit]

Looks like a monetary neologism. For the record, ostriches don't hide their heads in the sand -- they are actually quite fierce fighters (you go, ostrich!) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a Google search indicates that the phrase is in wide use in many areas, not just economics. Article should be widened. JJL (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the point of the article is economics, which is why I put it up here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JJW. See the fourth hit on google from the NIH. As to Ecoleetage's concern, I'd say just expand the article to include non-economic terms. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite anyone to expand the article. As it stands, however (it remains an economic article), it doesn't make the grade. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google turns up plenty of sources, so notability is probably there. While the article needs expansion, that's not a reason to delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:27, 21 October 2008 (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.