Deletion of Romnesia

Comment: article fulfills . Wikipedia's |policy for neologisms stipulates several criteria by which we may determine if a neologism is ready for an article in Wikipedia: '''1.''' ''"To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable |secondary sources, such as books and papers, '''say''' about the term or concept, not books and papers that '''use''' the term"'' (emphasis mine). '''2.''' ''"...when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic"''. There are several |secondary sources which directly write about the word Romnesia in context, which explain, analyze and interprete the usuage of the word Romnesia. Thus the notability criteria found in  have been fulfilled
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO||WP:PSTS||WP:PSTS||WP:NEO)

Comment: to Public image of Mitt Romney. A violation of , with a possible violation of . This has a better chance on Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary than here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: another article based on the  of the US elections. Not a term that is likely to have long-lasting notability, just a turn of phrase Obama used in a speech. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: and salt. Neologism, , purely negative and BLP ish, take your pick
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD)

Comment: WP:BLP, , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:ATTACK)

Comment: very selectively, to an appropriate campaign article. This is one of dozens of similar political memes generated by the overheated political and media atmosphere surrounding the US presidential elections. It stands to be mentioned in the context of the campaign, but  as a word it very likely fails ; we may reconsider this should it turn out to have any significance after the election
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per  and .  If a year from now it's still remembered as one of the key phrases of the election, maybe then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: per ; "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.", and per #NEWS; "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." There are a handful of US-political neologisms (eg.: ''swiftboating'', ''birther'') that are notable - this one is not one of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOT)

Comment: Cannot understand how it even got to AfD; is a clear-cut '''Speedy Delete''' under #G10, arguments that it "has been covered" are not arguments that the phrase is worthy of an article; every turn of phrase in a Presidential election is to some extent covered, and no-one is proposing "I wish I could use my middle name" as an article, nor should they. Just because the latter was used, and was reported on does not mean that we need an article, nor that, since we have an article, we need to "explain" the context, nor since we need to "explain" the context does some partisan have an opportunity to WP:COATRACK on a rehash of birtherism. The phrase does not really exist outside of recent Obama campaign and surrogate promoters, the existence of the article is pure political promotion,#G11 and WP bars pure Advocacy articles for good reason. That the media has reported on the Obama political strategy might mean a mention in the Campaign Articles, as a strategy, but little else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:CSD)