Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics
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
— User:DESiegel, 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CSD||WP:V (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion)