Deletion of Expletive infixation

Comment: I don't understand the arguments against this article... wait a minute... there are none! Every "delete" vote is merely making fun of the article and/or calling it "ridiculous." Last time I checked the AfD is meant for discussion and arguments for deletion, not mocking the articles at hand. Now, there have been many articles (both newspaper and scholarly) written about the subject, so it easily fulfills both  and  (see this article in the ''Toronto Star'': http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=506b02ad7e26bc148cd45d04183e7ccd&_docnum=3&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVA&_md5=85dc90e9fcdc15fc2d87d6f6a9643366 and then add that to the already numerous mentions in JSTOR and Google Scholar). Needless to say, I would hope for a more mature discussion in an AfD, especially about a linguistic phenomenon that is both notable and serious
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: and in this case, I'm pulling out  - there's not very much documentation to hold it up against  or , but it's out there enough.  First, there is little documentation on this (or, really, any) coloquialism phenom, and most of what's out there is...well, pretty much through word of mouth.  The closest you'll get to documentation is, say, a Stephen King novel, for the simple reason that King's books just kind of come out that way. Second, the only really good way to document this is to provide a list of examples with an explanation of the concept - and at the time of my !vote here, that's pretty much what the article does. The side effect is that we hedge on being a primary resource - a little dangerous considering the nature of Wikipedia, but still
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:N||WP:RS)