Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-fluential

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-fluential

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

Pointless neologism without the required multiple instances of independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage suggesting notability in anyway. Even if such sources could be found there's no indication this could ever realistically be anything more than a dicdef (or would that be "neodef"?) stub. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vapid buzzword wannabe inserted for promotional purposes, referenced to a PR firm. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I was sceptical at first but after I'd researched a bit there seems to be a few genuine hits in both news and scholars as well as a hit from the Telegraph. Metty (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that the article is about the word, not about the persons. Belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete only one source and everybody wants it gone. As an added bonus: who has heared of e-fluential? nobody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.21.35 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-delete. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple searches failed to produce anything but nn press releases or promotions for a buzzword wannabe claimed and heavily promoted by Burson-Marsteller for its own purposes. Flowanda | Talk 09:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 16 September 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.