Deletion of Smirting (2nd nomination)

Comment: In my opinion, the article is already a bit more than a |dictionary definition, and given the number of sources available on the net (see my comment above), I don't see why it can't be expanded some more. Remember, an encyclopedic |stub usually strongly resembles a dictionary definition when it first starts out.  The sources provided in the article demonstrate that both the term and the phenomenon are |Wikipedia notable, regardless of the origin of the word.  If the word has fallen into disuse, that does not affect its notability for Wikipedia's purposes, as TEMP|notability is not temporary. —&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:STUB||WP:N||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: I just finished sourcing the article with multiple |reliable sources that establish "smirting" as a |notable phenomenon.  The sources have in-depth (significant to exclusive) coverage of the phenomenon and term, rather than simply using the term "smirting".  I added eleven sources (The Guardian, BBC, Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail, a couple of books, etc). If you want more, there are plenty to be had on http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=smirting&cf=all Gnews, http://books.google.com/books?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=smirting&cf=all&sa=N&tab=np Gbooks, and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=smirting&cf=all&sa=N&tab=ps Gscholar. I would also add that TEMP|notabilty is not temporary. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NTEMP)