Deletion of Red cunt hair

Comment: this is more than a , and seems to have sources beyond dictionaries. Yes, |WEDONTLIKEIT, but not a reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: classic example of , with no '''encyclopedic''' as opposed to ''lexicographic'' purpose. As Equazcion points out, all the cites we have are dictionaries defining it, and examples of its use: both lexicographic content, not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (:WP:DICDEF)

Comment: In response to Chzz above, no, I don't believe the |N or |DICDEF concerns have been addressed. There are a lot of refs now, but most of them are, as I said, examples of use in literature and slang dictionary listings, and don't constitute significant coverage as a topic. And the article is still just a dictionary definition. Aside from the one sentence on the probable origin in military slang, the article is devoted entirely to a long-winded guide to usage. It's now a ''good'' article, but still not an ''encyclopedia'' article, and might be better suited to Wiktionary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:DICDEF)