Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advisory capital

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 of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory capital

This was speedily deleted as "discussion of a term coined on a blog. No claim to notability", an action that WP:DRV overturned and sent here for consideration. -Splash^talk 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless better evidence can be presented that this is a widespread concept, delete as a neologism. Rossami (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rossami. In its own terms, the article asserts that it is a neologism. Xoloz 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep For the moment, at least, the topic is notable. It is the subject of discussion on many blogs (117 in technorati) with wide readership, some of which are cited. The notability guidelines don't (and shouldn't) preclude blogs. Many of the bloggers who have been using the term (including me) also write for print and/or write books. But blogs are now where our new ideas surface and are discussed. I did not coin this nor am I the principal blogger discussing the topic. If the topic should fade into obscurity, I'll be the first to propose deletion of the article. My guess is that it won't, however, because disaggregating the venture capital value proposition into its component parts including advisory capital is useful both in discussion and in the real world.--Tevslin 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've seen this phrase used extensively online. It makes sense to me, and if it disappears with time, you can delete it, my bet is that it won't disappear, but increase in frequency as the concept reaches more people--ninefish
- Notability does not wax and wane. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a proposal to the blog wikiproject that an acceptable measure of current notability be the appearance of an article subject with a high technorati rank (or other measures of blog attention). Note that this does not make blogs an authority except on the subject of what's being discussed - and does avoid narrow or vanity articles.--Tevslin 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think that blogs althought personal at times can highlight importaint issues, and Wikipedia can benefit from such a thing as importaint issues, and also in the case of history being unfolded would you want a personal view point of it or just some facts that in most cases is likely to have facts removed for upholding of oppinion such as in largely politicaly motivated media--atomic1fire 09:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe that Wikipedia can benefit by remaining current, and Blogs are likely to be an increasingly important source of current information. Would the letters to the editor section of the NYT be acceptable as a source and a Blog not? There are sufficient other safeguards as Tevslin and others have stated.--Eslonim 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 34,000 google hits appears to meet WP:WEB. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.