Deletion of Bulldog In The Bathtub

Comment: WP:NEO and/or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: No. Read , , and most importantly 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:ENC)

Comment: per Kinu. If I roll a baseball around my keyboard and post the new article dpccvvgh, would deletintg that be censorship? Among other problems, the article would be |original research.&ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: If you'd read  referenced above, you'd know that's utter nonsense.  The existence of an article on WP does not prove the worthiness of an article on WP.  It should be patently obvious that the article cannot be offered as proof of its own provenance
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)

Comment: No one cares if the term is offensive or vulgar;  censored for the protection of minors. The real issue, as stated above, is (by your own admission) the lack of |verifiability of any of the information about this word... aside from some random message board, which does not count as a |reliable source, even if it was cited, which it is not. Thus this phrase is thus a suspected |protologism, and an article about the term probably violates |the no original research policy as well. I hope this addresses the concerns you might have as to why other editors are advocating deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NEO||WP:NOR)