Deletion of Wikipornia

Comment: as |non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: nn, neologism and a |self reference
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:SELF)

Comment: I tend to agree this is ''not'' a  problem (and if it was, I don't think such is basis for deletion, only a rewrite). To quote the policy, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important."  I think if everyone and their mother used this term (or for instance, newspapers) then there would be no problem.  As it is, however, it is a new idea and needs to gain popularity before being included.  Existing on google is quite different from being widely used (as might be ''demonstrated'' via google).  That is how I read it at least.  Thus I claim it ''is'' a relatively unused neologism and should not be included as such
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:SELF)

Comment: followed by a '''salting of the earth''' so nothing ever grows again. I have the utmost faith in the closing administrator to discount the torrent of |sockpuppet votes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: There seems to be some confusion as to the nomination.  I see no one thus far arguing for removal because of morality.  Note that removal for the protection of minors is ''against'' policy (See this #Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors|policy), however deletion because the word is a neologism is consistant (in my view at least) with its |neologism policy.  This is one of many neologisms (hundreds, if not thousands) that have been nominated for deletion.    I support a deletion as it is a neologism
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NEO)