Deletion of Binders full of women

Comment: Seems like scandal mongering contrary to  as it was publicized to attack his reputation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: Per  political bullshit that does not deserve an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per Masem, Calwatch, and MZMcBride.  I think this is definitely a viable search term, but I don't believe it has standalone significance and beliefs that it has lasting significance is textbook 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 per . We didn't allow for a Paul Ryan water gulping or Joe Biden condescending laugh article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clearly  as an internet meme.  It may be note that it is of political in nature, but that doesn't change the fact that it is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012, United States presidential election, 2012, Mitt Romney are existing articles on the subject providing the topics against which "Binders full of women" is measured at AfD. The topic "Binders full of women" is a  of existing articles and those editors working on the other existing articles can decide whether the source information from Binders full of women belongs in those articles. If the Binders full of women there after reaches enough content, editors can create ummary style|Summary style spin-off. As it stands, now, the topic also falls under #NEWS since there is no enduring importance/significance of this events in the context of (1) Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012, (2) Mitt Romney, (3) United States presidential election, 2012, or (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic. As for (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic, reliable sources originating commentary on the topic need to have been covered in reliable sources themselves to add the material to the "Binders full of women" article. Redirect if desired/needed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:REDUNDANTFORK||WP:S||WP:NOT)

Comment: to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012. The article has coverage in |reliable sources, so mention of this meme can belong on Wikipedia, but I don't think there's enough content to stand on its own article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: article fulfills  which stipulates that ''"...to support an article about a particular term  we must cite what reliable |secondary sources, such as books and papers, '''say about the term''', not books and papers that '''use''' the term"'' (emphasis mine). The countless scores of international reliable secondary sources that have written about "Binders full of women" do exactly that: the term "Binders full of women" is thoroughly explained in context, analyzed and interpreted (e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/mitt-romneys-revelatory-binders-full-of-women/2012/10/17/d0acc962-186e-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html 1, http://www.welt.de/politik/wahl/us-wahl-2012/article109927471/Amerika-lacht-ueber-Romneys-Ordner-voller-Frauen.html 2 http://www.punchng.com/columnists/medals/american-women-in-a-binder/ 3, http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/hess-mitt-romney-s-binders-full-of-women-mean-cabinets-full-of-women-1.4129800 4). The term is not just merely used. Thus this term has fulfilled Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for neologisms
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:PSTS)

Comment: A textbook case of , there's a pretty good chance that in a few months nobody will care. Even then it's likely to end up as a couple of sentences in the debate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Obvious propaganda contrary to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: The meme itself is notable by RS and GNG (or at least overcovered online in the past week). Per , this article has  and should stay up. This AfD share much in common with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech|You didn't build that—in this moment, it's notable. If that changes, re-nominate for AfD then
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:TIND||WP:POTENTIAL)