Deletion of List of sexual slang

Comment: mdash; I was the originator of what is now stored as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18, where my rationalle was #Wikipedia is not a dictionary (#3 A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide), , .  I apologize for the length of my comment; however, I feel it is necessary to address the various issues involved in this renomination.  My original nomination was timed specifically to coincide with discussion then ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2; in reference accusations of ''nomination bombardment,'' I feel that it is appropriate that similar nominations be made concurrently, both to focus the attention of those having opinions on the issue, and to forestall, in some measure, the inevitable claims that the existance of one policy violation supports the existance of another (i.e., if Body parts slang exists, then List of sexual slang should also exist, and vice versa) as were proffered this time by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: why is no reason given for re-nomination?  It was voted on like 2 weeks ago with a quite high ratio of keeps.  Anyway like it or not there are lots of lists of jargon/slang/technical terms on Wikipedia, for example List of baseball jargon.  As long as they're well organized and useful, I don't see the problem.  It's just when the subject is sex or something controversial that people start to look for excuses to delete such lists.  Until consensus is to delete all slang/jargon/terms lists changes, I can't see deleting just certain ones for subjective personal reasons, under the thin excuse of arguably breaking 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: It is informative, descriptive by comparisons/groupings, and it is extensive (which indeed has its strong and weak points).  Further, there is a competing section of , namely 1.5.2, which allows for "structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles".  Since many of the terms on the page indeed have their own articles, it is useful for encyclopedic purposes to group and compare them, and this indeed assists with the organization of articles.  Also, just because it is long is not an excuse to delete an article, but rather should be an impetus to break it up into separate articles.  There's no denying that neologisms and cruft have crept into this article, but that fact demands that more contributors participate in handling verification of such terms.  Last, I have to protest this "nomination bombardment", where a consensus wasn't arrived at the first time, so the argument losers try again.  This also happened with Body parts slang, and its deletion resulted in a very informative article being wiped off with a slight majority that could not have been reasonably construed as a consensus. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)