I'd like to push the notion of "keeping and relisting" pages on AfD as - an appropriate means of closing controversial AfDs with a high level of outside participation - a good alternative "vote" to express on such AfDs (e.g. "'''Keep and relist''' on AfD in 4 weeks").
I think the discussion about pages like Eon8 has been hampered by the perception that a page, once kept, will reside in Wikipedia forever.
To me, this is an example of old-fashioned encyclopedic thinking. But we are not living in an old-fashioned culture, and Wikipedia is not a traditional, "patient" medium. We update existing articles with information about events the moment they happen, whether it's someone dying or a football score. We often remove or summarize information that has been added during a particular event once it has phased into our cultural memory.
However, in the area of judging the existence of articles, I think we are currently dominated by a "Keep vs. Delete" attitude, the idea that an article is either "utter rubbish" or "eternal wisdom." We are split ideologically into factions of "deletionists" or "inclusionists". I think this is wrong.
We need novel thinking, because we are dealing with novel problems. Internet subcultures would like their every fart to be documented for eternity. Are we going to do that? Of course not. But I don't see anything wrong in principle with including ephemeral information in an ephemeral manner.
Of course, there can be no compromise on verifiability or WP:NOR -- Wikipedia is not a soap box or a place to explore novel theories. Nor am I proposing that spammers should be given room to promote their products for a "limited time only" (pardon the pun). What I am saying is that there are ephemeral phenomena that generate a lot of noise in ephemeral media like blogs, and in many cases there's nothing wrong with documenting them -- ephemerally.
Erik