Deletion of Folx (term)

Comment: As Crossroads suggests, some of the cited sources seem to be Use–mention distinction|use rather than analysis of the word ''qua'' word. But leaving those aside, there are still about half a dozen appropriate scholarly sources, satisfying , at least to my satisfaction. Completed dissertations, at least at the doctoral level, can be used as reliable sources when supported by other sources. Being behind a paywall or not available online has no bearing on sourcing. While the article may include original research or other problems, eletion is not cleanup. NB: I removed the blog that is #12 in nom's list above, and replaced it with a scholarly article by the professor in question. Like the blog, it also refers to the ''Boston Globe'' piece, but also includes much more analysis of the general issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:D)

Comment: per .  The article is certainly longer than a typical dictionary entry, but that does not change the fact that at root, it is still discussing the meaning, usage, and etymology of a word.  It has long been established here that such material belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.  However, I would not support moving any material there given the dubiousness of the references.  Word Spy is alleged to claim the word has been around for "at least a century".  If that were true it would be found in the OED, but it isn't.  Sounds to me like a case of wishful folk etymology by non-lexicographers.  Very possibly, this is too recent a coining to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDICTIONARY)