Deletion of List of British words not widely used in the United States (3rd nomination)

Comment: Each previous nomination has been a '''Consensus keep'''. Not a "No Consensus", but a "Keep". Is there any point at which we can speedy this thing along, or do we have to do this every time someone decides to AfD it? Really, I see more of an issue with  then 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:OR)

Comment: I think a case can be made for OR as has previously been attempted, as well as for .  But the overriding question to me is:  What has changed from all the previous noms?  Not much.  What is new in this request?  Nothing.  It smacks to me of being, "ask the other parent."  Nom it enough and eventually the tide will turn, IMHO.  So even though this has issues I'd say keep on those grounds, if I cared enough. Special:Contributions/98.215.48.213|98.215.48.213
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: At the risk of sounding |unconventional, simply repeating the noms as documented in previous AFDs is not likely to garner a consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: This is not some hastily done  list. This is a bloody well done and useful examination of linguistic differences, and I think it would be bollocks to remove it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It needs tidying up, and is prey to the addition of lots of , but the core of it is good dictionary-based material. I see nothing here to change the consensus to keep in previous AfD discussions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It has references.  Common sense  is also a helpful guide here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: The last AfD was in January of this year. The sentiment at that time was literally unanimous for keeping (excepting the nom of course). Given that I think it's a tad early for a new AfD. Like keep voters in the previous AfD's, the only thing I can say of this list is that it seems quite encyclopedic to me. I'd never heard of it before but it also seems quite useful on the face. Neither of these are standard AfD arguments but I do think they are somewhat valid as this is neither a typical article nor list (it does pass , for whatever that's worth). I don't believe the list is inherently OR or inherently unsourceable (indeed the whole thing could probably be sourced to a dictionary of some sort). It would be nice if most or all of these entries were sourced, but that's not a reason to delete. It seems that the article is fairly well maintained and relatively accurate (based on a cursory review). After four previous AfD's and a unanimous "keep" vote early this year it seems too soon to be discussing this again. Obviously if consensus has changed I'll be proven wrong
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)