Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonstration of Higher Value
discussed extensively be reliable sources. Multiple pages in multiple books (http://books.google.com/books?id=HFaF-bpOSl8C&pg=PA124&dq=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22&hl=en&ei=J66zTp2pMKaiiQL3u7B1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22demonstration%20of%20higher%20value%22&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=GQP3ObeR-CgC&pg=PA177&dq=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22&hl=en&ei=J66zTp2pMKaiiQL3u7B1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22demonstration%20of%20higher%20value%22&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=ibpvw3wALXcC&pg=PA74&dq=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22&hl=en&ei=J66zTp2pMKaiiQL3u7B1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22demonstration%20of%20higher%20value%22&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=q2ZfAscW27oC&pg=PT26&dq=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22&hl=en&ei=J66zTp2pMKaiiQL3u7B1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22demonstration%20of%20higher%20value%22&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=MezwAAAAMAAJ&q=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22&dq=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22&hl=en&ei=J66zTp2pMKaiiQL3u7B1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA) and multiple mentions in multiple academic sources (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?gcx=w&q=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps).  which  Kaldari cites does not apply. The page says "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term", which I am hardly doing, http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22demonstration+of+higher+value%22 108k Google results are enough already. The guide says "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society", which my article does! And it is not just a word, it is a concept that admittedly could use some fleshing out. It is clear that Kaldari has a personal vendetta against the topic group
— User:LegrisKe, 09:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)