Deletion of Meh (2nd nomination)

Comment: Since the last Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meh (slang)|AFD-Meh(slang) in 2005, the press has published  67 articles in 2006 http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Meh%22+word&scoring=t&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2006/01&as_hdate=2006/12&lnav=hist6, 90 in 2007 http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Meh%22+word&scoring=t&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2007/01&as_hdate=2007/12&lnav=hist7, and 60 in 2008 http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Meh%22+word&scoring=t&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2008/01&as_hdate=2008/12&lnav=hist8 for a total of 217 articles from 3rd party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources concerning this term.  Some may say '''Meh''', but I believe the term has evolved to more than a ikitionary|dictionary entry and has established its otability|Notability well within our standards for inclusion at Wikipedia.  Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:N)

Comment: First off, there is no way that this could be a CSD G4, because the current version is completely different than any previous deleted version. The current article begins with a dicdef, appropriately, but the subsequent section on "Controversy" is encyclopedic (not dictionary) material, and of demonstrated  notability since it has multiple non-trivial references. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Controversies related to the word meh" but I would recommend keeping it simple
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)