Deletion of Lesbaret

Comment: No  whatsoever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: According to the article, the term was first coined in June 2013.  That would mean that it is less than one week old.  When the term has had time to circulate around, and get used by more than just one person to hawk her own entertainment program, then it may become a |notable neologism.  For now, now so much
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: True, Google cannot track word of mouth, but then word of mouth is not considered a |reliable source.  We need |verifiable evidence that this word has gained currency as the term for a particular genre of entertainment, and that is currently lacking
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: WP:OR|original research! It's a newly-minted |neologism and there is no indication that it is in any way notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: There are no reliable sources to show that this is anything other than something someone |came up with one day. We don't include |neologisms on Wikipedia, not unless they're something that caught on so wildly and received such an extreme (and I mean '''''EXTREME''''') amount of attention from just about every type of press there is. Even if the thing the word is describing has been around for a while, that doesn't change that the word itself is new. It's not up to Wikipedia to help popularize or spread a word around and I can't even see where this word is even being used that much. Searches don't bring up much by the way of usage. This just isn't notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:ONEDAY||WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: per above. To summarize: no  (actually, no real sources at all), , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NEO)