Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealth Tech

:{{la|Wealth Tech}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wealth_Tech Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Wealth Tech}})

Contested prod. This is a neologism that has not gained much traction. Article created by single purpose account to promote a book. Very few relevant Google hits. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete WP is a place to record an established term, not to promote one. Capitalization indicates a promotional intent. Not enough coverage yet. Rhadow (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Page creator has defended the term, on the talk page and elsewhere, saying that it gets 40,000 Google results. However, that's just the count Google puts on the first page of results, and as so often happens with Google, if you start paging through the results, you find that at about the 150 mark it tells you that the rest of the results are basically duplicates of those already shown (and even with those results included, it stops in the three figures)... and looking at those 150, many are not the usage being described here. So this is a neologism without much traction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete The article is so lightly paraphrased from the two references that it's arguably a copyvio ("Fintech companies that provide alternative solutions to incumbent wealth management companies" versus "fintech companies that offer an alternative to traditional wealth management firms", etc.). Even setting that aside, the first reference is mostly a long quote from somebody's LinkedIn post, and the preface to that quote says "Ah, a new word is born" — i.e., a neologism. A news search finds a smattering of results for the past few months, but not enough, IMO, to indicate that the term itself deserves an article. Plenty of news and general hits are false positives, too; e.g., "as they have grown in wealth, tech firms have..." (By way of comparison, the financial technology article is pretty dreadful, but its presence is more justifiable. A redirect to financial technology might be warranted, but there isn't any content in the Wealth Tech page worth merging.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. There are some uses of this evident in a BEFORE - e.g. - [https://www.hubbis.com/article/how-bento-is-democratising-wealth-management] or [https://news.efinancialcareers.com/sg-en/281112/launched-fintech-start-ups-singapore] - however usage seems to be quite limited. I'm not sure this would make a dictionary or glossary - and I don't think it should make an ecyclopedia - YET - WP:TOOSOON. Article is in additional in a poor state.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.