Deletion of And that's a good thing

Comment: I am still fairly new to understanding all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and I apologize for arriving a bit late, I had to read quite a bit of material to confidently voice my opinion. I do not feel that the stated reasoning for deletion is valid this early in the article's publication. To refer to : I would argue these complaints are in the clean-up level. If this article is already so irreconcilable that it must be deleted, I would like to see the necessary evaluations of the four criteria of , showing a lack of sources that would cover  (assuming those are the appropriate notability guideline for this phrase) and that the improvement of this article's sourcing is not possible as per section C of  as well as . In relation to the article's subject, there would have to be a clear case for the strict application of the notability guidelines here. On Wikipedia, this sort of article, discussing cliches, their origins and usage, writing and sourcing can be complex. But this fact alone doesn't merit immediate deletion, and while it could at most be pushed back to draft space, the relevancy of this topic merits being available for public editing. "And that's a good thing" is a strong contemporary example of template-style article headlines, which supplements the growing study of clickbait journalism. Thus, I would argue that this article does merit being kept for improvement, and I am looking for additional sources now to help improve this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP||WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE||WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Since when is AfD for cleanup? The complaints are about the sources currently in the article. Has the nominator made any attempt been made to discuss this with the article creator? Or to find sources? He seems to have done neither. Absolute worst case this should be kicked back to draft space or userspace. Or there could be a merge/redirect to clickbait. Furthermore, the article creator has virtually no edits. Is it necessary to  with this trigger-happy AfD nom?{{parabr}}I don't believe GNG exactly applies here in any event. Articles about words and phrases are difficult to write and difficult to source in a way that provides the requisite two news articles we typically demand from run-of-the-mill subjects like biographies and events. It's unquestionable that this is a common clickbaity headline element about which there has been interest, just that separating the wheat from the chaff in doing source analysis is difficult. The author of this article should be commended for taking on such a difficult subject rather than suddenly face an AfD nomination. Special:Contributions/69.174.144.79|69.174.144.79
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: This is completely . None of the current sources discuss this phrase and I cannot find any RS that do talk about this phrase. WP is not for original research like this - and that’s a good thing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:ORIGINAL)