The result was delete. Wizardman 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a neologism coined by a marketing firm, Porter Novelli. The author very properly declares in the edit summary that he is an employee and so has a COI. Of the four references, the second does not mention the term, and the other three mention it only in the context of Porter Novelli coining it and doing a survey. This is not enough to establish notability per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." In this case there is no evidence of any use except in the context of Porter Novelli's survey. Also, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" applies here. Delete. JohnCD ( talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
:: From author, Matthew Snodgrass ... Thank you for this consideration. I have the upmost respect for your policies and do not intend to post this as any sort of vanity term. According the truest terms of the
COI, my posting of this does not represent a conflict of interest, as I'm not being paid specifically to create this article. With regards to the use of the neologism, the term, greenfluencer, has had extensive coverage beyond the cited articles listed, both in referencing Porter Novelli's study and in passing use of the term, "greenfluencer":
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a neologism coined by a marketing firm, Porter Novelli. The author very properly declares in the edit summary that he is an employee and so has a COI. Of the four references, the second does not mention the term, and the other three mention it only in the context of Porter Novelli coining it and doing a survey. This is not enough to establish notability per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." In this case there is no evidence of any use except in the context of Porter Novelli's survey. Also, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" applies here. Delete. JohnCD ( talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
:: From author, Matthew Snodgrass ... Thank you for this consideration. I have the upmost respect for your policies and do not intend to post this as any sort of vanity term. According the truest terms of the
COI, my posting of this does not represent a conflict of interest, as I'm not being paid specifically to create this article. With regards to the use of the neologism, the term, greenfluencer, has had extensive coverage beyond the cited articles listed, both in referencing Porter Novelli's study and in passing use of the term, "greenfluencer":