Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang
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
— User:Stevietheman, 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)