Deletion of Duke Status

Comment: |Non-notable neologism.   guidelines clearly state: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers ''about'' the term—not books and papers ''that use'' the term." (emphasis in original)  The article points to two music videos and a newspaper writer who have used the word.  That might be true, but it doesn't make the term notable and wouldn't even if scores of usages were reported.  A secondary mention in an Urban Dictionary entry for another term does not approach  referencing guidelines either.  Even the author of the article appears to be aware of the shaky notability; take for example the statement that "amateur ethnologists have yet to come up with a precise definition of duke status."  The second half of this sentence clearly indicates that the term in question is nebulous and doesn't specifically mean anything in particular, and the first half obliquely indicates that even the author would agree that ''professional'' ethnologists have better things to do with their time than keep track of obscure protoneologisms like this one.  This case seems pretty clear cut to me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:RS)

Comment: no reliable sources,  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT||WP:NEO)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Gosh, take your pick ... Whether an |unreferenced neologism, an |unsourced |non-notable catchphrase, |something made up in school one day or just plain |nonsense, it doesn't belong.  The creator is new, so I recommend that he start with  to learn about Wikipedia's standards for inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:NFT||WP:BULLSHIT||WP:PILLAR)

Comment: Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)