Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factlet
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
— User:Slakr, 02:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:DICTIONARY||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NEO||WP:GNG||WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)