Deletion of J-Ethinomics

Comment: A non-notable |neologism. Google shows no signs of independent coverage by reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: WP:N|Non-notable, fails . Slightly promotional
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: I declined a #G11|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:V)

Comment: 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 . --'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)