Deletion of Bend Over Boyfriend (2nd nomination)

Comment: There is nothing more here than the barest assertion of notability.  I don't see anything in the article or the DRV meeting  or OTFILM
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTFILM)

Comment: and consider  in light of the, shall we say, quality, of the ''delete'' arguments. Clearly notable based on sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: now that W. Marsh has done a , adding the sources. Meets  hands down. Not my favorite subject, but no buts about it, not a cra- -- no, I won't say it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:N)

Comment: mdash; clearly meets |notability guidelines after the extensive cleanup and addition of sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: I have added five sources, which by itself makes this meet . There are also many more sources http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Bend+Over+Boyfriend%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives, just the fact that some sex ed video has gotten so much coverage should be evidence of notability. At any rate, there are now some claims of notability and importance in the article... this video apparently had a lot to do with popularizing "pegging" (and was apparently an early term for the practice). So please, step back from your deletionism people... some of the above comments are pretty sad. Is content that scary? It's not like the sources weren't mentioned in the DRV
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)