The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Expressive commerce" seems to be a complex strategy for marketing auction services to buyers and sellers. The primary source for the content of the Wikipedia page is an article by a computer science professor identified in the article abstract and elsewhere as the founder, chairman, and chief scientist of CombineNet, Inc.
User Esourcerer (talk), article creator and single-purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest, apparently considered the following three edits sufficient to remove the ((prod)) (neologism / original research / spam) which had been added at 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC):
The subject may or may not be sufficiently notable but, to quote db-g11, Esourcerer's version "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." — Athaenara ✉ 09:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As more references are found (and published), they can and hopefully will be added to the article. That has already happened since the article was first created.
How is the article written like an advertisement? It defines the subject, provides more detail in bullet lists, lists benefits and drawbacks, mentions usage. The excerpts from the definition that Smerdis of Tlön references for arguments that the article is make money fast on the Internet and WP:CSD#G11 do not apply: the article has nothing to do with making money fast or on the Internet. And the definition applies to the industry, not one participant.
The definition nowhere says that expressive commerce is a "strategy for marketing" (of anything). Markets and marketing are very different terms.
The sourcing industry is moving in this direction, as noted by the references. Maybe because it's not a glamorous industry, many people have not heard the terms and might consider them neologisms. The terms are used in the industry, again as noted by the references.
While not necessarily relevant to the AfD discussion, here's the motivation: billions are being sourcing using expressive commerce, and those billions affect lives. (Because the effects result from improved economic efficiency, they are positive, though that's even less relevant other than it should suggest that the cause will survive.) Examples include better matching of suppliers and buyers, and less wasted fuel due to more efficient transportation networks.
I won't address the ad hominem arguments. Or arguments that rely on correction of an obvious typo. - Esourcerer (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]