Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- J-Ethinomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded and tagged for CSD on 15 February. CSD was contested and prod endorsed 3 times, but author left a comment on the talk page indicating deletion is not uncontroversial. Original prod rationale was "Neologism with no assertion of usage beyond the company where it was coined"
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A non-notable neologism. Google shows no signs of independent coverage by reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:NEO. Slightly promotional, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I declined a G11 speedy of this, on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently blatantly promotional to meet the speedy deletion standards. i then undertook a google search, finding no relevant 3rd party sources or indications of notability. I removed the speedy tag, but the the pre-existing prod tag in place, and endorsed the prod. I now endorse deletion for the same reasons. If sources were provided to indicate that this term had significant currency, beyond the company that is using it, i would reconsider. But at the moment this appears to be a newly coined marketing buzzword, with no independent notability. I would add that a "citation" such as "Fletcher & Peters, 1997" is not useful, as it does not indicate the journal or other method of publication, nor the title of the work. This is not sufficient to find the work cited, and thus is not a reliable source at all. Does not meet verifiability, a core policy. DES (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as prodder. It is clear from the article that this neologism is part of the internal vocabulary of the company where it was coined, but the creator left no evidence that the term found its way outside the company. A note left on the talk page by the creator (which led to deprodding and to this AfD nomination) makes it clear that the creator's intent is to remedy that situation, something Wikipedia must not be used for, per WP:NEO. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. I'm really no deletionist, but in this case I don't see how these two articles are of any encyclopedic relevance. Besides the promotional purpose of the articles: the negative Google search reveals that the company must be very new or exceptionally unimportant. If the author could add some useful (and non-advertising) content to generic topics like Journalism ethics and standards or Media ethics, that would be fine, but this we don't need. PanchoS (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. All these appear to be is original research, a non-notable neologism, and a tissue of vague glittering generalities --
This concept characterizes practices in journalism that work to develop trust, credibility, and accountability - values that are the foundation of media ethics.
The EthicsforMedia approach focuses on demonstrating that ethical journalism supports the long-term financial prosperity of media organizations.
that have the strong odor of WP:SPAM. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per Smerdis, et al. Concur, the articles appear to be promoting a non-notable topic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:23, 17 February 2010 (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.