Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulture capitalist


 * 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Vulture capitalist

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Dicdef; no reason all of this can't be in Venture capitalist, since it's just a pejorative term for a particular sort of VC. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was completely rewritten just before this nomination by an IP whose other edits are ... not promising. It is probably worth considering both versions of the article when addressing its potential. --JBL (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That rewrite by the, now blocked, IP was a complete joke. I've reverted that so that we can discuss the actual article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that all versions of the article should be considered. Bwrs (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say weak keep. I didn't like the inclusion of individuals in the "See also" section so I've removed those. We can include those people in the body of the article, if they really are relevant. I also don't like that quite a lot of this is referenced to a single, short YouTube video that is not from an RS source. Looking in Google Books, News and Scholar there do seem to be a number of decent sources out there so I think it should be possible to fix that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But in what way is it not just a pejorative for certain venture capitalists? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The qualitative difference seems to lie in their focus on already distressed companies which can be picked over, restructured and refocused on their potentially valuable parts rather than on companies that are just starting up and which might be seen to offer a good value proposition with their current structure. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Practically no indication of notability. The only reliable source, which is Investopedia, cannot be used alone to establish notability. More reliable, independent sources should be added. Multi7001 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, passes WP:GNG, based on the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's real and significant, and though it's in the same general are as Vulture Fund, it's a little different.  DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 17 January 2022 (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.