Deletion of Deletion gestapo

Comment: A |self reference sourced with blogs and more self referencing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR)

Comment: Full of , possibly created by a disgruntled editor to make a point, although the point ''may'' be worth making, if reliable sources could be found, but they don't seem to be, the NYTimes one isn't about deletionism, and the Telegraph one is a blog. Only one thing for it... send in the Gestapo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: not even bothering to vote at this point)... Reliable Sources? Check. Non-trivial Coverage? Check. ? Check.   —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: do not move to wikispace'''.  Soapboxing has no place on Wikipedia, especially in article space, and synthesizing a bunch of unconnected sources is not carte blanche to make a big |pointy essay about how angry you are something you wrote was unsuitable for Wikipedia.  Utterly |original research.  Note I have removed the {{tl|Rescue}} template from this article, as it is not a lack of references or a need for cleanup it is lacking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:OR)

Comment: 1/  is strongly involved here and states neologism articles are strongly discouraged, and ''"Articles on protologisms recently emerged neologisms are almost always deleted"''; 2/  "not an indiscriminate collection of information. Collecting every newly emergent neologism would breach this; 3/ has  and other policies require a certain degree of long term historical perspective, notable usage, etc. This expression is neither well defined ( nor widely used. No good evidence has been provided that it has passed into common speech outside its own small circle. 4/ It is cruft (definition: of interest to fans and such only, limited or no general interest). If kept, in addition,  would require at the least a rename. But to my mind, , and then  and , seem fairly conclusive at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOT||WP:NEO||WP:NPOV||WP:NEO||WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: The nomination is badly reasoned, but even with sources this is basically a |self-referential |definition, and not an article at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR||WP:DICDEF)