Deletion of Megxit

Comment: I'm not sure why so many are invoking  on this, which isn't policy or guideline, it's only an essay, and if applied literally would mean we'd never add articles about current events. Much as I personally think the story is overblown nonsense and it shouldn't be a big deal, it's clear that this has enough substance and enough reliable source coverage to easily meet our standards for both notability and having a standalone article. It's a bigger deal than Covfefe. On the naming, although I wouldn't be opposed in principle to a descriptive title I think there's a big problem with defining what that is. For a while the article was titled "Resignation of..." which is inaccurate. They haven't resigned from the Royal family, they've just "stepped back" from some of their duties. As such, the current title which has gained lots of traction in lots of sources, describes the topic in a  fashion and with enough frequency to justify as a . In short, leave exactly as is. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:CONCISE||WP:COMMONNAME)

Comment: Per my comments above, and now that {{u|Dr. Blofeld}} (one of the most experienced FA-GA rated editors in WP) and I have over 20 refs from /Ps using "Megxit" in their title and body to describe this event it is never going to be a delete.  In addition, the RS also show that it is not an "abdication" nor (at least currently) a "resignation".  Other social media terms like "Sussexit" made much less appearance in /P (almost none); however the term "step-back" gets some use (although at a much lower lever).  Until we know how this highly notanle "current news event" develops (e.g. maybe they will end up fully and formally resigning), I think "Megxit" is the title for now. We can always revisit any case for a merge in a few weeks/months time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)