"Fish-man, hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.  Thank you for taking the time to examine Wikipedia policies and base your arguments for keeping No-boo on them, and also for being polite when making your arguments.  VfD pages really aren't the place for me to be making lengthy arguments, so I'll respond to your points here instead.

First, you should be aware that anonymous users who sign up for accounts just to argue about the article being voted on are still effectively anonymous users, and are still not going to have their votes counted.  At this point I think it is really too late for you to establish a history at Wikipedia that would result in your vote being counted.  Again I refer you to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus for this information.  (Anonymous authors who request that their articles be deleted are often given consideration, but not those who want them kept.)
Whether they're specifically enumerated on What Wikipedia is not or not, articles about neologisms are not encyclopedia material.  Firstly, #2 on that page indicates that Wikipedia articles are not dictionary definitions, and as a neologism is just a particular kind of word, an article on a neologism is necessarily a dictionary definition.  Secondly, encyclopedia articles cannot describe neologisms because they cannot describe things that are as yet unestablished.  ""No-boo"" may or may not be a word with some currency today, but it remains to be seen whether it will become part of the language.  Once we can determine that the term has staying power and is culturally or historically significant—which time will likely not come for months or years—then we can write an article on it.  Or rather, we could, if it weren't going to be just a dictionary definition.
If the article in question is not about a word but actually about an event called ""The No-boo Affair"", then it ought to be entitled No-boo Affair.  In that case, I would still vote to delete it, on the grounds that it is a news story.  Again, there is no evidence at this time that this news story is going to have any historical significance, and considering that the substance of the news story is ""the AP made a mistake; they said some people booed at a speech but really nobody did"", it seems very unlikely that it will ever have historical significance.  (You characterize the AP's error as a ""clear falsification"", but I see no evidence of malicious intent by the AP, and anyway it's still not an encyclopedia's job to document falsehoods by the AP.  If the AP has a history or pattern of such falsehoods, and it is well-documented by other unbiased sources, then we can make a note of it in Associated Press.)  If the term ""no-boo"" becomes well established—which, again, we will not know for months or years—then perhaps it will be appropriate for us to record this news story as the origin of the term.  Certainly, Wikipedia has articles on other recent news stories.  However, most are stories of definite historical signficance, and those that are not should also be deleted.
Wikipedia wants articles on items that are currently in the news, yes.  In this case there are many things related to the story that people might want to look up.  If we didn't already have them, we could add articles on George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, West Allis, Wisconsin, booing, the Associated Press, the White House, the Republican National Convention, New York, etc.  But this ""No-boo Affair"" is not an encyclopedic topic in the news; it is a breaking news story.

It is important to understand that an encyclopedia is not simply a gathering of assorted facts, but rather a secondary source that compiles significant pieces of human knowledge that have already been well-established by other sources.  There are many places on the internet and offline where you can disseminate facts and opinions about this event, but Wikipedia is not one of them.  — 18:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)"