Deletion of Age disparity in sexual relationships (2nd nomination)

Comment: per  and
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY)

Comment: Topic has encyclopedic value given the societal trends of the last 2 decades. The proponent's rationale that the article has been a mess for years is just a variant of the to-be-avoided  mentality and, thus, a non-reason. If there is riginal Research in the article the correct procedure to follow is to be  and fix it; going on a delete frenzy is not the way to deal with that. A review of the sourced citations shows that a serious attempt has been made to include an abundant variety of reliable sources. I further note that the WikiProject Sexuality has assigned "Medium" importance to this article,,, not bad. '''My name is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:RUBBISH||WP:O||WP:BOLD)

Comment: per nom.  Article fails , fails , and fails OR in the form of |synthesis. The article has no sources at all about the topic as a whole. The few sources that are there are popular press articles or dictionary entries about one or another of the listed slang terms
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:SYN)