Deletion of Special snowflake

Comment: Per my comments above I see no evidence that there is any encyclopedic concept here that is not covered in other much better, well sourced, articles. I must add that I disagree completely with the nominator's invocation of , which is an essay that has no support whatsoever in policy or guidelines, and I wish people would stop invoking it in deletion discussions. If something needs rewriting from scratch then that can be done by normal editing without any admin having to press the "delete" button, but in this case the article needs deleting, not rewriting from scratch.  Special:Contributions/86.17.222.157|86.17.222.157
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: to wikt:special snowflake syndrome or '''delete'''.  This isn't Urban Dictionary, and we don't track the definitions of popular phrases/memes – unless they pass  and .  I don't see evidence that this does.  Sure, people ''use'' the phrase, but we need more than just use and/or definitions.  I wasn't too keen on keeping manspreading, but it's got real coverage – people talk about it specifically, analyze it, criticize it, have mounted campaigns against it, and have generally made a nuisance of themselves by constantly writing articles about it.  When this reaches that point, we can create an article on it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:GNG)

Comment: to Self-esteem. The frequency with which a term is used is irrelevant for inclusion here as Wikipedia is |not a dictionary. There are countless terms which would return lots of ghits that have no place on Wikipedia because Wikipedia just cares about notable concepts rather than word use (which is a hallmark of lexicography, not encyclopedism). There's an overlap between the two reference works, of course, when the term takes on a life of its own, with separate meanings and a great deal of sourcing talking specifically ''about'' the term in its own right rather than simply ''using'' the term or talking about it in the same way one would talk about a concept we already cover. So we would need coverage of "special snowflake" that talks about that specific term, not using the term in general, and not talking about it as though it's synonymous with a topic we already cover (like self-esteem). If someone could just as easily say "kids who are told they are special to boost their self-esteem, as part of the self-esteem movement", that means we don't need a separate article (although I will say I'm surprised we don't have an article for self-esteem movement -- but this certainly isn't the material to start it with). As with many terms, there are shades of difference between calling someone a "special snowflake" or a "unique and beautiful snowflake" or "unique snowflake" or when someone says that "everybody is their own snowflake" (or any of the other countless terms that are very frequently used and will return a bunch of ghits, but mean more or less the same thing), per  (and /), we don't need separate pages for each one. The underlying concept has to do with self-esteem, ego, individuality, etc. so that's where this should go. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:NOPAGE||WP:DICDEF||WP:NEO)