Deletion of The terrorists have won

Comment: Could you please explain which portion of  is violated? Nothing specific even in the indiscriminate collection of information portion is violated. The fact that it has entered the common lexicon to the extent that it has puts the lie to the claim that it is non-notable. In addition, your statement that it holds no particular meaning other than the context in which it is spoken makes very little sense- what bearing does that have on whether the article is verified and notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: violates .  NN-Neologism.  While the phrase is well-known in commmon parlance, it doesn't hold any particular meaning other than in the context it's spoken.  As such, it's not encyclopedic.  Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I see that, but it doesn't fit under any of those particular named criteria. At no point does it say that we shouldn't cover widely used and controversial elements of the language; the closest we have to a guideline on that matter is , which this article meets ''very'' nicely
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)