Deletion of Schrödinger's Rapist

Comment: If it's a notable topic, it's a notable topic; if it's not, it's not. The identity or behavior (outside editing) of editors who contributed to the article should play no part in a deletion discussion. Nor, for that matter, should one's |personal point of view about the phrase
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PPOV)

Comment: Schrödinger’s Deletionist is a term..." - No, I won't continue - we already have two too many heavy-handed parodies of the nominated article in this discussion, and a nomination in which only about three words are devoted to giving a valid deletion reason (parodiability is '''not''' a deletion reason) and of which over half is in blatant breach of . Turning to the article itself, the subject is a meme which I have seen quite a few times - but I accept that the article does not have quite the quality of sources we require for notability and I have not identified better ones on a quick search. But that is no reason for gratuitously irrelevant attacks on the article and its creator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)

Comment: per : Neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Firstly, I want to make it clear that I believe that many of the deletion rationale's given in this thread are totally invalid.  The fact that an article on the phrase "Schrodinger's cougar" is irrelevant, as that is a made-up phrase that as far as my google-fu can tell has never been used in the history of the internet; thus, it would be deletable under , , and .  On the other hand, the existence of the concept of Schrodinger's rapist is trivially verifiable.  Nor is the identity of the creator of the article relevant to whether the article should be deleted. Nor is the article being "shite": OTCLEANUP|AfD is not Cleanup.  However, the article ''is'' about the term "Schrodinger's rapist", and as far as I can tell, the term is not notable.  Any discussion of the term seems to come from blogs which don't meet our |standards for reliable sources, though the term is ''mentioned'' by some reliable sources.  If the article could be turned into a discussion of the Schrodinger's rapist phenomenon (i.e. that women are expected to take responsibility for not being raped, but have no way of knowing whether or not someone is a rapist, and so have to treat all men as potential rapists), ''and'' if evidence that this is notable is found (possible, though I'm not sure of the best way of searching for it) then this might be keepable (or, at least, mergable into rape culture).  So long as this continues to be an article about the term, however, I think it is deletable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:HOAX||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:RS)

Comment: I cannot find sufficient coverage in |reliable sources to establish that this phrase is |notable. Blogs, yes, as
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)