Deletion of Queer Glass

Comment: And yet, |original work ---> "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to "refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" and I must repeat myself as a biased opinion-giver: Sources do exist! So far in this discussion alone, there has been listed in one way or another: (1) A newspaper article with "Queer Glass" as a term in the headline, (b) A BFA thesis titled "Queer Glass", (c) a 2015 discussion by a college professor on the subject available on a, (d) craft website which "... incorporate queer narratives and symbols into their works...", (e) Not one, but two museum exhibitions (both listed in original article) using the term (debate aside on meaning/interpretation, and (f) perhaps less as a "valid" but nonetheless existing data point: hundreds of hashtag usage of the term with images. As such, it seems to me (and again - I am not subjective, since it is my article) that we are being told that none of these sources are "suitable" and "independent"? I believe that they/some of them are. The term is neither invented or created by this article, but gathered from the discussion in those sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per nomination, on which one can add very little. The case made by nominator is succinct and correct, especially on a practice rightly cherished in Art but forbidden in Wikipedia: |original work. Some arguments to Keep are based on variants of  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:EFFORT)

Comment: per nom and Elmidae, this is pure , trying to make up a new genre in defiance of the sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)