Deletion of Factlet

Comment: Wikipedia is |not a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: or '''Merge''' to Factoid.  applies on numerous grounds, and citing UrbanDictionary as the source of the definition calls into question the |reliability of that definition in the first place, so much so that a google definition query ("define:factlet") only returns Wikipedia. Even "thefreedictionary" returns a contrasting definition, so it's sort of ironic, given we're not a dictionary, and the word also isn't clearly covered by dictionaries to mean what we're saying it means.  Keep in mind that for any word that exists enough, |original research can be used to paste some uses of it together to form an article. That's also where the  of DICTIONARY comes in, because it's not enough that a handful of usages occur, there has to be substantially more -level coverage to support the notability of the word, itself, as a subject of critical analysis. That that bar hasn't been met sufficiently for an independent article, and the fact that the sources covering the word are, themselves, advocating advancing the word into the mainstream would also suggest that, again, in the spirit of , the article serves more to increase notability than to cover the critical discussion of a word-already-notable in an encyclopedic way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTIONARY||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NEO||WP:GNG||WP:NEO)

Comment: per , redirect to Factoid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: There is clearly non-trivial substantial coverage of this term, far above what I expected to see and enough to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: somewhat to my surprise). The Use–mention distinction|use of the word in media sources is not sufficient to |verify content or establish |notability of an article |about a word. However, this article cites pieces by William Saffire, Alex Madrigal, and Paul Brians discussing the word as a word, as well as a category of information. Given its brevity, and the brevity of (the non-example portion of) Factoid, the two concepts ''might'' be handled in a single article, but the content should not be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: The term has passed the neologism stage and is being used in mainstream media such as the ''Mother Jones'' which has a column called http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/04/factlet-day Factlet of the Day. In addition, there are |tertiary sources such as the http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=factlet Urban Dictionary and the http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factlet Free Dictionary. The term appears increasingly in mainstream publications such as the http://www.mercurynews.com/tv/ci_25790988/amazing-race-all-star-winners-and-winner-is San Jose Mercury News. It meets the |general notability guideline test of being the subject of substantive articles; for example, the ''Atlantic magazine'' wrote an entire article on it called http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/down-with-factoid-up-with-factlet/255235/ Down With Factoid! Up With Factlet!. New York Times language columnist William Safire wrote about it. Since there is ongoing discussion in mainstream media about how the term ''factlet'' and ''factoid'' should be used, the subject is not merely a dictionary definition but an encyclopedic topic and should be kept in Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:TERTIARY||WP:GNG)

Comment: as |Wikipedia's not a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDICTIONARY)