Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eccount

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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eccount

Eccount (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Spammy neologism. The 281 unique ghits don't indicate wide usage. MER-C 09:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication in the article that the term found its way out of the company that coined it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in case the previous unanimity wasn't entirely clear. No notability for this vanispamcruftisement. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "previous unanimity" -- you think that two people inputting, one saying nothing but voting, is sufficient input? What a perverse idea of "consensus". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. andy 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment that is a vote - say something constructive. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam, neologism, ugly. AnteaterZot 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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.