Deletion of Neg (seduction)

Comment: Due to the valid concerns of users voting to delete, '''I rewrote the article almost entirely''', like I did for Cockblock per . I added several |reliable news sources, and I aimed for more |NPOV tone. The article sources now contain definitions of the term, usage of the term, and discussion ''about'' the term to satisfy  (e.g. the interview in Salon.com where the interviewer explicitly asks Mystery about the neg, which also demonstrates |notability). As
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:RS||WP:POV||WP:NEO||WP:N)

Comment: Ok, but what are the policy reasons behind your vote to delete? Terms such as categorical imperative also have no meaning outside a particular community and somewhat resemble the more general use of similar words, but they are worth including in wikipedia because they are written about by |notable people and in |reliable sources. Same thing with neg. Neg is discussed in other articles, but that discussion is not as well sourced as the current version of this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: per  and .  We could probably put some of the content in flirting or seduction community
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD||WP:NEO)

Comment: The article could use some revising and additional sources. But reliable sources on "neg" are available, so deletion is not the right solution. Here are some sources that I ran into with a bit of Googling, which include discussion ''about'' negs in addition to defining them (satisfying 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)