Deletion of Girlfriend experience

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: 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: 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: Richard, per the  requirement, however, non-trivial reputable/scholarly sources are needed, on many of the other sexual topics nominated today, there are those sources, on this one, there are not.  I find Lexis to be a bit better than, say, google, at determining what's been studied in a serious context or mentioned in news sources, it is the premier database of news articles and journal articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)