Deletion of Quim (slang)

Comment: Being in dictionary of modern slang refutes the   and EO claims.  The article in its current form is not a dicdef, nor is it original research.  Not one claim of the deletion proposal holds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:NEO)

Comment: sorry but I cannot |assume good faith any further. Sources, notability are all there, everything is there, what else can I say? This is violating 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:POINT)

Comment: Article is fine. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per . Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per above. The nominator seems to be on somethng of a |crusade at the moment. Sigh
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: a reference pointing to a slang dictionary means , sorry.  Moreover, a slang dicdef does not establish that the word has been the subject of (not merely mentioned in) multiple, non-trivial published works" .  Moreover, the examples of Uses are unreferenced. And, IF the ability to merely point to uses of a slang word is sufficient to make it notable (and it is not), THEN that means that every single entry in a slang dictionary for which examples of the word-in-use can be found is worthy of an article. Hardly, because . Dictionaries already contain examples of words in use
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD||WP:N||WP:WINAD)