Deletion of Anchor baby

Comment: Moderately notable neologism.  I know all about  but if enough exists maybe we can derive an observation about practice.  We do have articles about slurs - wetaback, Welfare queen, Kike, Sambo (racial term), Shiksa, Guido (slang), on and on.  In fact most have articles.  What takes this above the level of a mere neologism (widespread usage seems to date only back to 2006) is that it's become associated with advocates for immigration reduction.  So it is at the tip of a phenomenon.  The article is correct in focusing on the phenomenon of the term as a reflection of people's sentiment about immigration, and not the phenomenon it purportedly describes.  Thus, just like the N word is an article about the objectionable slang rather than the people who it's applied to, so is this article about the word and not the US citizens who some people wish were not citizens
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Wikipedia |may not be a dictionary, but this term still deserves its entry. It passes , , EO and  (Though  is a connected issue, not policy). Also, the article is properly referenced and passes . The article has sources such as ''The New York Times'' and the ''Chicago Tribune'', so even if you wanted to call it a neologism, you still couldn't deny that it has secondary, encyclopedic sources to back up its notability. Not to mention the relevance of the term Anchor baby in article such as Illegal immigration, Wetback (slur), Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, and Immigration reduction to Special:WhatLinksHere/Anchor baby|name a few
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:DICTIONARY||WP:NEO||WP:WORD||WP:WORD||WP:V)