Deletion of Basic bitch

Comment: The biggest argument for deletion is , but that guideline says: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." However, as per Melchoir and Chase, there is enough coverage in secondary sources that prove that this is ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: The topic satisfies Wikipedia:Notability; the article already lists references from Paper, Time, NYMag, The American Reader, The Guardian, Vogue, and Forbes that are dedicated to the topic. The topic also satisfies , as (1) the phrase is in wide use, and (2) there are treatments in secondary sources. And the article satisfies the following paragraph, , in that it does go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry; it provides history and commentary on the phrase, both with references. I agree that the article has "issues", in that a few sentences appear to include Wikipedia:No original research|original research, but that problem can be corrected; it isn't a rationale for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: per |GNG – coverage includes ''New York'', MTV, ''Salon'', ''The Huffington Post'', and ''Cosmopolitan''. |SLANG refers to article content, not article topics, and this article discusses the history of the term and interpretations of it, making it more than merely a dictionary entry. This nomination and the delete !votes reek of "|just unencyclopedic" and " don't like it|I don't like it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SLANG||WP:I||WP:just unencyclopedic)