Deletion of 86 (term)

Comment: per  - I suppose, ironically, this was nominated for deletion precisely because it's in the news
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Deletion is not appropriate as there are several sensible |alternatives to deletion such as merger to another page such as
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: tq|do not  86 this article!}} I know exactly what that means. I worked at a restaurant throughout my teen years as a busboy and dishwasher. This was a colloquial expression oft used in the business. This particular expression has found its way into other parts of society. The Etymology or derivation is interesting. The article has shown that 86 is more than a dictionary definition. The term and the article are certainly referenced well, with the New york Times|New York Times, Baltimore Sun, Atlantic News-Telegraph|The Atlantic passing  and . FYI. page views this year so far...319,839. If the encyclopedia is here for the readers...the readers confirm with their page views that the article is useful
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: To be honest, I cannot find a decent policy-based argument around the appeal to how |Wikipedia is not a dictionary, whereas Wiktionary is a dictionary. I’ve been looking at sources for 86’ing, and all of them are about etymology, which fits uncomfortably close to what the policy is describing. On the other hand, I don’t recommend deleting it because 86 is a well-known acronym that people will want to look for, even outside of the Twitter controversy. Wiktionary is a wiki that provides articles about words ''qua'' words, and most discussion about this word is etymological. Reference to definitions of words can be added to these articles. If a definition is not yet found there, one should find it used in a speech or similar published source (tweets would not count, but there are better sources out there anyway) and put it in
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT)

Comment: As long as the English Wikipedia has relevant articles about Quisling, Limey, Frenemy, and Sheep shagger, there is precedent for keeping this article, which meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)