Deletion of Obamaism (2nd nomination)

Comment: multiple reliable sources have the word which is the subject of the article, however it appears that not all of the RSs use the word to mean the same thing. Additionally, from just skimming through the RSs I am unsure that the they discuss the subject in a manor which would be considered ''significant coverage'' in . Perhaps, if it would be best to '''|userfy''' to improve it before returning it to the article space. The  opinion may not be relevant as some of the usages of the word go back to at least 2010
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:USERFY||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Lacking significant coverage in |reliable independent sources, fails  & . No objection to a redirect to Barack Obama
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS||WP:GNG||WP:NEO)

Comment: not awful, as they go, and it ''has'' been cited and defined in |reliable sources, but unless I see some secondary sources, this article is |to soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:TOOSOON)