Deletion of Fag hag (2nd nomination)

Comment: As above, article can be expanded.  Also very notable.  Additionally 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia.  Please see 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a |point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The concept of a "fag hag" is more than the definition of the term, so  doesn't apply.  |Notability is established and EO|neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~200,000 Google hits).  |Verifiability is Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed|no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of |original research.  None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination appalls me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD||WP:N||WP:NEO||WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: Concept is notable; article should be tagged. 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: It's getting harder and harder to |AGF with these deletion nominations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)