Deletion of Baby killer

Comment: I removed the Prod because, while controversial, we don't censor ourselves, and it is |well-sourced. As Mr. Norton points out, that creates a ''presumption'' of notability.  The nominees have the burden of proof for deletion. In the meanwhile, the article is |being improved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:HEY)

Comment: per . (or WP:NEO).  I don't see a need to transcode because the majority of our content here is already largely at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/baby-killer Wiktionary.  In general, articles about terms, rather than ideas, require substantial coverage about the word or term, rather than the idea that that word or term expresses. Sources that do provide that sort of information (e..g, a putative "An Illustrated History of the term 'baby-killer') would provide that coverage, and while I didn't see any, it's possible that I've missed something, so additional sources that do discuss the term, it's history, and so forth, are welcome as always
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT)

Comment: for the same reason that we do not have "imperialist lackeys" or "nazi pigs". However well documented http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=+%22imperialist+lackeys%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=, http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22nazi+pigs%22&aq=f&aqi=g-v5&aql=&oq=, these (pejorative, which make them an open invitation to ) phrases are used in too widely different contexts for it being possible to write a coherent encyclopedic article. Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|''walk
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLEGROUND)