Deletion of Pallywood (2nd nomination)

Comment: I Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallywood|nominated this article for deletion back in February. Although it's improved somewhat since then, it's still deeply flawed. The article tries to do two things: to define the term "Pallywood" and document its usage, and to discuss the amateur video of the same name by Richard Landes. There's certainly evidence that the term has been used frequently in the blogosphere, but a Lexis-Nexis search finds only a handful of uses in the mainstream media. We're not in the business of defining blog slang. '''|Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide'''. As for Landes' video, Lexis-Nexis finds only ''two'' mainstream sources referring to it: it's mentioned briefly in a UK ''Daily Telegraph'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/04/14/nosplit/dldoc14.xml article on online conspiracy theorists, and equally briefly in a ''National Post'' article (not online). It doesn't appear to have been the subject of any reviews, and there are no articles specifically about it. Assuming (very generously) that a home-made video can be considered a film, '''Wikipedia:Notability (films)''' applies; Landes' video doesn't meet any of the criteria set out there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: per above: Sourced and notable. Poor judgement on nominator's part (basically 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: the references to The Bus Uncle are so clearly off-base that it's difficult to {WP:AGF. That article references ''dozens'' of articles in  which treat the subject in detail; 'Irate HK man unlikely Web hero' from CNN, 'When Life Makes You Cry Uncle' from The Washington Post, 'Three men beat up Hong Kong's Bus Uncle' from the AP, etc etc. Pallywood, and the Google News searches referenced here, provide only a handful of passing mentions in good sources, such as 'as one American academic put it — artfully staged "Pallywood" theater.'  tells us that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—'''not books and papers that use the term''' ... 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." (em mine
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NEO)

Comment: almost none of the sources in the article seem to actually be about the term. Horribly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: As a film, it spectacularly fails ; since the rest of the article is based on that film, it appears to be completely |OR. No evidence of the term appearing in mainstream media or society either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTFILM||WP:OR)

Comment: A number of editors above argue that Pallywood is not about a film or a neologism, but rather about the ''phenomenon'' of alleged Palestinian media manipulation; they claim "pallywood" is an acceptable, encyclopedic term for this, one widely used by reliable sources.  This argument seemed so self-evidently false to me that I didn't even think to address it in my nom – which focuses solely on notability issues regarding the film and the neologism.  ''Of course'' "pallywood" is not an acceptable term for the alleged phenomenon: besides violating , '''not a single reliable source anywhere ''uses'' this term for it.'''  The few reliable sources cited by this article mention, in passing, that Landes and some bloggers use the word, but they don't ''themselves'' adopt it.  And for each of these reliable sources that mention the word in passing, there are dozens that don't mention it at all. To argue that "pallywood" is the accepted term for this is like arguing that "Zionist entity" is the accepted term for Israel, on the basis that some reliable sources mention the use of the phrase by non-reliable sources.  I would hope – and did hope, when writing the nomination – that this argument would be readily understood to be fallacious, even ridiculous.  Secondly, I am troubled by the recurring strawman argument that this is an |IDONTLIKEIT nomination.  Assuming that those advancing this strawman argument are "voting" in good faith (that is, not simply throwing a thin disguise over their own |ILIKEIT argument), they do not appear to have understood or engaged the policy and sourcing issues involved.  If this is an article about a phenomenon, it needs a title accepted by the reliable sources who have covered it; and no reliable source uses "pallywood."  If it's an article about the movie and/or neologism, on the other hand, it needs reliable sources attesting to the notability of either the one or the other.  The very small handful of reliable sources that mention "Pallywood" (movie or neologism) do so in passing, in a way that  explicitly defines as "plainly trivial."  As for what I like and don't like: I like that Wikipedia includes information about Landes, about the film ''Pallywood'', about the protologism "pallywood" (and who uses it), and about alleged Palestinian media manipulation.  I like that a reader who types "pallywood" into our search bar can get to this information.  I like that |Wikipedia isn't censored.  What I don't like is a path to these ends that egregiously violates , , CON, EO, and .  Information about the movie, and the blogslang it created, can be moved to Richard Landes, with "Pallywood" as a redirect.  Information about alleged Arab/Palestinian media manipulation should be presented in an article of its own.  It can mention "pallywood" in passing (like the reliable sources do) and provide a "see also" link to the Landes article.  Having a neutral title for the media manipulation article will be a good in its own right, but it will also enable it to grow and become more encyclopedic, since it won't be restricted to sources that happen to mention an obscure slangword in passing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:N||WP:CENSOR||WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:NCON||WP:NEO||WP:N)

Comment: yes, it is , and neither is the recently featured The Bus Uncle. Rather it is notable, if only slightly, but dozens of media references are certainly adequate for anyone but the strictest deletionist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTFILM)

Comment: per xDanielx. jossi's comments are also spot on. This really is a case of , and I would also point out that if the nominator had actually had strong arguments for deletion, she wouldn't have had to write a book-length nom peppered with personal attacks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)