Well, thank you. We certainly agree on fundamental difficulty in communicating. I am able to hear what you have to say. I don't perceive you as a Great Evil in your idiom, or ill-intended (except perhaps on one point I'll go into later), and I can generally extend good faith when one is open to public discussion. Given the many confusions involved, I first need to know: 1. Are you now willing, as I am, to discuss the primary issues in detail in a consensus-building discussion subject to such WP:BRD principles as "listen very carefully" and "be ready to compromise"?
If so, the first consensus I need is whether an article should exist on the topic of dramatically-concentrated short-period political fundraising. Your objections at AFD appear to me primarily as "magnet for edit-warring" and "WP:COATRACK" (you raise other concerns related to neologism, but they do not enter into the question as I've phrased it). These concerns both seem bad arguments per WP:RUBBISH because they are surmountable problems, and Wikipedians may not delete based on creator intent but on criteria like notability: we are expected to resolve edit wars and coatracks by DR, not deletion. 2. Given this, for what reasons if any would you oppose existence of an article on the topic of dramatically-concentrated short-period political fundraising? (If none, I would ask you to change your AFD entry at this point in good faith.)
The second consensus I need is how to disambiguate the search string "moneybomb". Previously you advocated google bomb as the primary redirect. Independent of the previous paragraph, I would ask: 3. What is your specific justification that users entering the string "moneybomb" would be interested primarily in a detailed description of search manipulation, with a mention of the fundraising form without further fundraising elaboration? (If none, please propose alternate disambiguation specifics.) This proposition, which your position amounts to, would imply there is greater connection of the string "moneybomb" with search manipulation than with fundraising, which is an exceptional claim to me, requiring detailed explanation. I'm sure you recognize that both reliable sources on this point use the string "money bombing" and significantly not "moneybomb".
This must suffice to begin. Please reply to these details first before we build to other matters such as policies.