Deletion of Post Election Selection Trauma (second nomination)

Comment: Definitely a problem with . This is not a distinct syndrome from other depression/trauma. Moreover it did not "survive" AfD, as the last AfD was "no consensus" with only five people showing up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Bad faith nomination. Nom put in a hoax tag, but didn't discuss it on talk, then nominates for deletion two minutes later.  Nothing has changed in the article, nothing suggests that (lack of) consensus would change in a month's time (since the last AfD). Can you point to discussions you've had with editors regarding that consensus on this article might have  been formed?  Not that I see much worth to this particular article, but seems it could be improved and I see no evidence consensus has changed (or formed) that would validate a renom per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)

Comment: per mental condition which is cited, addressing  concerns.  NPOV is addressed by the Foxman quote and overall tone.  I'd like to see footnotes to the AHA of Florida releasing list of symptoms and for the Foxman quote, and the last paragraph (Andrew Veal) shows no citable evidence that he is an example of this disorder...but those are cleanup issues, not reasons for deletion.  This seems a bad faith nom, particularly given the  and  arguments (for the first, is the nom a therapist who has proven the disorder doesn't exist, and for the second...if it were a Snowball issue, there wouldn't be a need for this discussion, would there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:BALLS||WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: Wow, only in Florida. :) Clearly as an academic term it isn't worthy of an article since nobody in the academic community seems to take it seriously. Google scholar shows no relevant hits for the term.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+%22Post+Election+Selection+Trauma%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search Could it survive as a neologism?  is one of the strictist notability guidelines I've read, in fact it doesn't really describe any circumstances when an article on a neologism is appropriate. I'll admit that some neologisms may be worthy of articles, but with only 9000 google hits http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22Post+Election+Selection+Trauma%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:answers.com&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&as_qdr=all I'd say its pretty clear this one doesn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)