Deletion of Skintern

Comment: It has been perceived and analysed as a phenomenon by several journalists and described in prestigious publications. It meets . There are lots of Wikipedia articles on terms that many people will not understand, and nowhere in the thousands of pages of policy is that grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: clearly notable phenomenon.  have been met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: the requirements of  have been met, and the concerns raised in  have been addressed—specifically, the article cites reliable secondary sources that discuss the term, rather than simply citing articles that merely use the term.  Thus, there is no original research problem, and the sources that talk about the term itself are sufficient to meet the notability, verifiability, and reliable source requirements, placing the article in the  subsection of the policy, rather than 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEO||WP:WORDISSUBJECT||WP:NOTNEO)