Deletion of Electracy

Comment: It is not a neologism because it it not |original research and it is |verifiable. However, the 'Electracy and Pedagogy' section is not |neutral point of view. Recommend removal of that section and warning that entry be reworded to be impartial
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:VER||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I don't understand why the fact that it is a "neologism" is such a problem.  "Blog" is a neologism but doesn't say that it is a neologism in the article.  Should we remove "Blog" because it is a neologism?  The article can easily be edited to remove the term neologism if that is the problem.  Finicky's comment is not invalidated because she makes the point that it is not |original research and it is |verifiable. Citations can be added to show that the term has been used by writers other than the author.  The entry itself cites a source published by a reliable publisher as well as other scholarly work mentioning the term.  For this reason, it is also "verifiable."  Do a google search on electracy and you get 22,000+ hits, demonstrating its broad usage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:VER)

Comment: insufficient sources that discuess the usage of the term "electracy" itself, as required by , note also |possible conflict of interest concerns
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:COI)

Comment: per nom. Non-notable |neologism, |self referenced article, and serving only as an |vehicle to lend credibility to the author's theories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:SELF||WP:SPAM)