Deletion of Lewinsky (neologism)

Comment: I was on the fence for a while but after reviewing the sources in the un-deleted article I now think that it meets the relevant guideline (), however distasteful the subject may be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: already covered elsewhere, and not sufficient notability for a stand-alone article per  policy. Most of the sources are primary sources, i.e. sources using the term, rather than secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources. Also BLP concerns
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: not even counting that this article is a textbook example of why |BLP1E ''exists'', it has been clearly created in order to |make a point about another unrelated article.  &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:POINT)

Comment: for the same reasons I expressed at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism discussion.  The entire concept is a  on a .  It's a  and .   My view also has grounds in many areas of .  Simply put: This is not what an encyclopedia, regardless of how extensive, should be documenting in all juicy lurid details.  The funny thing is, I won't be surprised a bit if this gets deleted, and the santorum one gets kept.  But I'm starting to get used to the complete lack of consistency in this project
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK||WP:BLP||WP:FORK||WP:COATRACK||WP:NOT)

Comment: carefully and judiciously).  A number of policies and issues intersect here, and (pending a more complete review of the sources) the case could be made that this satisfies  and as a well-sourced article about an (unwitting) public figure is thus out of  territory.  However, I am also a firm proponent of , , and .  Assuming that's how and why the article was created we shouldn't reward a disruptive editor who happens to have found a viable policy argument the fruits of their mischief.  Further, stepping way back from all of this, as an encyclopedia I think we should mention this pop culture phenomenon -- the English language and its evolution being an important topic well worth covering in the encyclopedia -- briefly as a side issue to the scandal article, not as a stand-alone article.  That's what's best to inform the reader, our primary mission here
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:BLP||WP:SOCK||WP:DENY||WP:POINT)

Comment: per concerns raised both here and at the deletion review regarding  issues. There's simply no reason to have an article that identifies a person's name with a sexual act. Even the similar "santorum" article (which presents much different concerns) did not survive as "Santorum (neologism)" but was renamed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)