Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewinsky (neologism)
carefully and judiciously).  A number of policies and issues intersect here, and (pending a more complete review of the sources) the case could be made that this satisfies  and as a well-sourced article about an (unwitting) public figure is thus out of  territory.  However, I am also a firm proponent of , , and .  Assuming that's how and why the article was created we shouldn't reward a disruptive editor who happens to have found a viable policy argument the fruits of their mischief.  Further, stepping way back from all of this, as an encyclopedia I think we should mention this pop culture phenomenon -- the English language and its evolution being an important topic well worth covering in the encyclopedia -- briefly as a side issue to the scandal article, not as a stand-alone article.  That's what's best to inform the reader, our primary mission here
— User:Wikidemon, 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:NEO||WP:BLP||WP:SOCK||WP:DENY||WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)