Deletion of Malamanteau

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS. The only source for this is Erin McKean's news article - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/30/one_day_wonder/ Boston Globe May 30, 2010. The one other article I found merely cited to McKean's news article.http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/vocabulinks-11/ Neologisms require more to justify a Wikipedia article.  provides requirements, such as wide use, which Malamanteau lacks. Even the event surrounding the effort to try to see fast the Malamanteau word can enter the language is an event that does not meet . Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if it were, Malamanteau would not be in it. Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTNEO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets  with quality sources such as ''http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/11/neologisms The Economist'' and ''http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/30/one_day_wonder/ The Boston Globe'' addressing the subject directly in depth as their main topic.  does not seem to apply as the article is about the word as well as the events surrounding its popularization
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: It's true that the bulk of the sources cited are irrelevant to notability, not being to reliable sources or not containing significant coverage of the topic.  However, the Economist, Boston Globe, and Long Island Press citations readily meet the  between them.  Note that commentary on Wikipedia controversy does ''not'' automatically make a source primary for purposes of Wikipedia notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to xkcd per .  There are sources, but not enough to warrant notability on a separate article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per BigDom as well as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)