Deletion of Malamanteau

Comment: Blogs published by established reliable news media sources, such as The Economist, or written by experts like Language Log can be notable per : "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control", "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: because it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Having looked through the sources provided, many of them are |unreliable or simply do not even mention "malamanteau" (no, someone writing it in the comments section doesn't count). The only ref that comes close to being usable is the ''Boston Globe'' article, but that alone is not enough to pass GNG. I will AGF that the author did not intentionally mislead us into assuming notability by using an unreliable blog from ''The Economist'' but not mentioning that fact that it is a blog in the reference. Also, this article is full of false attribution; not one of the sources provided in the Sarah Palin paragraph actually says that "refudiate" is a "malamanteau" (not that they would be reliable sources anyway) and there are other examples throughout
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)