Deletion of Wanker (2nd nomination)

Comment: Extremely well known in New Zealand. The illustration is correct - just one eg. it was recently featured in advertising a chocolate milk shake drink. There are tone issues and excessive pop culture references, but these don't justify a delete. Seems to be making oint
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: recommend nominator read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Surprised to find this even listed for deletion. The only reason seems to be to remove profanity. But #CENSOR and if this is removed, we may as well say goodbye to the likes of fuck and cunt. I would ask people to look at other articles the user who nominated this for deletion wants removed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: the nominator appears to be on a quest of some sort to eliminate earthy Anglo-Saxon terms relating to sex from Wikipedia, always using the justification  ("recently coined" words that do not "appear in dictionaries") although these are established slang terms or colloquialisms. This nom is at least better formulated, but see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingering (sexual act), and yet others. I am unsurprised that other editors are bringing up 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:POINT)

Comment: as another ...let's be charitable and say ''misunderstanding'' of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: this is one of the most used insults in the UK. The article is more than a dicdef. I recommend the nominator read . I also recommend this AfD be ended now because of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:SNOW)

Comment: incorrect rationale use of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: I've just added a reference to a reputable article dedicated to the word and its etymology.  I could probably dig up some more if necessary.  The term is clearly |notable and is certainly not a neologism
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The word has nuances of meaning that go beyond a dicdef. It also shows up in numerous works of fiction, one of which was on my niece's Grade 12 syllabus last year (thank you Martin Amis). I don't even think it's slang any more. I'm trying not to assume bad faith in regard to |non-US language or |censorship issues, but this is clearly notable. And by God: if you're going to redirect "wanker" to "masturbate", let's just go ahead and redirect asshole to rectum and creep to Committee to Re-elect the President|Richard M. Nixon
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB||WP:NOT)

Comment: Certainly not a neologism, but fails . ( was the main argument for deletion in the first afd). The article content is in very bad shape and is not encyclopedic in its current form. Recommend soft redirect to Wikitionary. At minimum, please let's remove the "popular references"/trivia sections altogether which as is so often the case, are out of control and a net negative - and well, a crap magnet in themselves in this such a case. I absolutely agree that the consensus reached in the previous afd was inadequate - in terms of taking the discussion seriously in policy terms
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:DICDEF)

Comment: it's "merely mentioned" in the dictionary. This nomination is pushing the envelope of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)