Deletion of Neckbeard (slang)

Comment: I believe there is a general consensus the term is notable and has been covered in reliable sources, thus passing GNG. There is also a second policy called  which states
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: I see little connection (besides the use of the term "neckbeard") between the present article and the the ABC-CLIO chapter the keep arguments rely so heavily on.  That source is a (rather meandering) rumination on some stereotypes of internet users, and doesn't really have any strong connection to the term "neckbeard", it just uses the term a few times.  The present article is not really about that stereotype anyway, but about a specific slang term used to refer to it.  It very much fails : for reference, here's the actual Urban Dictionary entry for "neckbeard": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neckbeard. The present article has the same style and content.  The term ''itself'' has not gotten the kind of in-depth attention to pass , since mere usage doesn't pass that bar
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTURBANDICT||WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: as {{u|GretLomborg}} says, |Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary.  The term itself has not received significant, in-depth coverage and has only been used in major publications as a passing reference to instances of Internet harassment.  For the benefit of the closing admin, while the keep !votes are numerous, they are generally shallow and are only superficially valid.  I respect {{u|Andrew Davidson}} as an editor, however his !vote is based upon |other stuff existing and these other articles cover the beard style in-depth whereas the article we are discussing is based upon its Internet-lore status.  Two other keeps are merely "it's covered in publications" but such reliable publications are not cited.  Although {{u|Cunard}} does mention a whole chapter of a book being dedicated to the Internet phenomenon, I can find few other reliable sources that give ''meaningful'' coverage that would create content useful for an encyclopedia.  Perhaps a section in Beard would be more appropriate but I am of the opinion that the keep rationales are more numerous but weaker
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: There's already too much here to fold into the section about the hairstyle on the Beard page, and after perusing the sources listed, I would argue that the article needs to be ''expanded'' rather than deleted. There are sources which treat the term (as it applies to people, not a facial hair style) in sufficient depth. The fact that Urban Dictionary has an entry on the same subject is irrelevant,  does trump the other page, and  is not what's at issue. If the article does fail this AfD nomination, I would argue it's almost certainly |merely a matter of time until even more sources of the calibre of the book listed are published to bolster the sources already cited
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WORDISSUBJECT||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: this is a textbook case of an article that fails  and should be deleted.  Discussions of notability are not relevant due the aforementioned  issue. We already cover the facial hair style at Beard#Neckbeard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTURBANDICT||WP:NOT)

Comment: The book ref was actually pretty decent, but still 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY)

Comment: I strongly disagree the deletion side has stronger arguments. The argument  has valid weight. The subject has been covered in a ABC-CLIO book. '''ABC-CLIO, LLC''' is a publishing company for academic reference works and periodicals primarily on topics such as history and social sciences for educational and public library settings. ABC-CLIO provides service to fifteen different online databases which contain over one million online textbooks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WORDISSUBJECT)