Deletion of Walk of shame (2nd nomination)

Comment: Having problems for several years is not a reason to delete.  Wikipedia has no deadline and it is our |editing policy to keep articles in mainspace awaiting attention.  The article already contains several good sources including a book of this title which discusses the topic in detail.  The topic is therefore notable and so should not be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: per the info provided by Abductive, meet .  BTW I went to college in the 80s and used the term
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Let's set aside many of the arguments above: "I've often heard this phrase," "It's a notable term because it has many Google hits."  Well, there are plenty of words I often hear or read, but dictionaries, not encyclopedias, are for looking up words.  By the way, shocking even to me, Google only returns http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=%22walk+of+shame%22&start=810&sa=N&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8 802 unique hits for this phrase.  Besides which,  and all that.  On the other hand, to say this article has "languished" is not a particularly good reason for deletion.  But what do we have in terms of sources for this article?  A college paper sex column and references in books to people doing a walk of shame?  I've struggled to figure out what sort of encyclopedic (i.e. non-definitional) information this article could contain if it were actually well-written, and I'm not finding it.  It would look like, "According to http://badgerherald.com/artsetc/2004/04/14/the_walk_of_shame.php one author, the walk of shame for males is characterized by poor or frowsy hair-styling, such as 'a bad gay-hawk.'  http://books.google.com/books?id=CaJcLwgS9NkC&pg=PT177&dq=%22walk+of+shame%22&cd=14#v=onepage&q=%22walk%20of%20shame%22&f=false Another states that a walk of shame performed 'with head held high' is in fact a 'walk of fame.'"  In other words, all this article could amount to is a dictionary definition, followed by the opinions and anecdotes of various authors, most likely with a healthy dose of OR and "in popular culture."  There's no encyclopedic content to be had here.  I'm not saying there never will be—this is a newish phrase, after all, and some researcher could decide to do a study—but there isn't now.  It's one thing to say we'll keep a bad article because there's no deadline on making it better; it would be another thing entirely to say we should keep an article on a bad subject because there's no deadline on it becoming encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GOOGLEHITS)