Deletion of List of LGBT slang terms

Comment: to LGBT slang.  I don't buy the ictionary argument because this isn't trying to define words (which, btw is what a dictionary does).  This encyclopedia is rife with absolutely ridiculous lists of absolutely ridiculous topics, and  does apply here.  Those lists are not sufficient reason to keep this one (though I do wish someone would go through and nominate many of them for AfD).  However, I think the best answer for this one is the same that was done for List of sexual slang which was to redirect it to the article Sexual slang.  The list of terms themselves are transient and regional, so if someone wants to do an article on the etymology of particular terms (as spelled out in ICTIONARY), they can probably find a better audience in the LGBT slang article than simply a laundry list of words.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:DICTIONARY)

Comment: there are 36 articles on individual slang terms in :Category:LGBT slang and its subcategory, so even if this list were limited to only notable terms there would be enough to merit a standalone list as a complement to the category per , and NOTDICT does not in any way restrict our internal indexing of articles just because those articles happen to be about words. But there's also no requirement for all list entries to be notable, particularly here where listing terms that are at least significant would be informationally integral to LGBT slang per . So we have indisputably valid entries (i.e., the notable ones) and a notable parent topic grouping them (contra the completely unfounded LISTN deletion !votes above; see sources in parent article to show that LISTN is actually satisfied here). Which only leaves us with the problem of what inclusion threshold to maintain, which, given the previous, is a matter for ordinary discussion and editing to resolve, not a basis at all for deletion of the list as a whole. Simply requiring secondary sourcing to verify the usage of the term and its meaning might maintain adequate standards, though editors might decide to restrict inclusion to those terms verified in particular sources recognized as more authoritative. At any rate, that's not our problem to solve here in this AFD. So to recap, keep per , , and , and deletion !voters should be reminded that AFD is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN||WP:LISTPURP||WP:LISTPURP||WP:CLN||WP:LISTN||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Per . "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide" seems to cut pretty much straight through this page, which is merely a list, more properly described as some phrasebook or dictionary, of slang words
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTIONARY)

Comment: There is a criteria for list notability:  "''One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines''". What we are looking for, therefore, is a book by a reliable publisher listing homophobic slurs in a significant way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I think I can just throw  into here randomly. The list seems to be gratuitously exhaustive. ''Knight of the Pork Sword'', ''Airy Dairy Fairy'', ''She who drinks from the furry cup'', ''Lick-a-lotta-puss''? Really? What actual merit do any of those selected terms have? The same can be said about at least 80% of the list. There are certain terms like Dyke (slang)|Dyke, Faggot (slang)|Faggot, Bear (gay culture)|Bear, and Queen (slang)|Queen that are ''not'' gratuitous; those (along with a few others) have been discussed extensively, and they can fare well in LGBT slang or other appropriate articles. The rest of the terms look like they were caught in a trawler's net that swept across every slang dictionary. Including ''Randy Bumgardener'' and ''Shit stabber'' doesn't improve the project
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)