Deletion of Very Serious People

Comment: nbsp;  states, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY)

Comment: Of the three rationales given, two of them are obviously invalid. ? There is no evidence that this is in any way temporary or tied to any event. #DICTIONARY? This is clearly not an article that contains nothing more than a definition. Not even close. The proposer would be well advised in the future to pick one ''good'' rationale rather than throwing several against the wall and seeing if any of them stick. This leaves , the only rationale that comes even close to being valid. The problem is, the article has enough coverage to meet our |general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:NOT||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: It's not  since the term has been in use since at least 2007. It does not get its notability via inheritance from any one individual; the term is used by many people. And it does have significant coverage. The references in the article are not just examples of usage, they are ABOUT the phrase. They cite actual explanations, from multiple sources, of what this term means and who uses it and who they apply it to. The term is at least as well established as other notable political buzzwords that have articles here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: per CartoonDiablo & Lambiam. Enough coverage in RS's to meet  and not run afoul of , and it is not written like dictionary definition
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEO)

Comment: per #DICTIONARY and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NEO)