Deletion of Pussy (2nd nomination)

Comment: The nomination seems to be proposing turning this into a disambiguation page.  This would be be achieved by ordinary editing, not deletion.  |AFD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: The article is in need of reorganization, better sourcing, and a clearer idea of what its subject is. It also appears to have some issues with original research. That said, deletion is not for clean-up. I'll venture to say that the subject to be treated is the word ''pussy'', and the history of its interrelated meanings. A Google Books search does find some sources that appear to be more or less on point, but none that are, at a glance, clearly sufficient on their own; thus the weakness of my !vote. By the way, given that this is a  article and that there are at least two specific things that readers searching for the term likely intend (''cat'' or ''vulva''; I'm discounting ''coward'' on no evidence stronger than my own impressions), I'm not convinced that this is the 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WORDISSUBJECT||WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)

Comment: WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are."  This page groups thinks by what they're called.  Also see Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY#Major_differences for example.  The nominated page gives etymologies and various meanings of the word itself, not the concept or topic. Even though it also gives more info than this, it's organized like a dictionary entry.  It either needs to be changed to be "encyclopedic" (and a lot of content removed) or it needs to be |deleted and recreated.  Disambig and creating specific pages (e.g., Pussy (slang)) wouldn't be out of the question
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:NUKEANDPAVE)