Deletion of List of terms of endearment (3rd nomination)

Comment: Baker, Nicholson  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/10/wikipedia.internet How I fell in love with Wikipedia, The Guardian, April 10 2008'':Wikipedia was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundsman. Some brought very fancy professional metal rakes...and some were just kids...stuffing handfuls in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to the pile were appreciated...And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and down in it, having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen, a world wonder...And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side. Like the vast majority of Articles for deletion, the policy  was not followed: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information"; :  "Remember that deletion is a last resort." Nominator made zero attempts to improve the article before attacking the article for a third time in this Article for Deletion.  was put in place to assure that editors contribute to wikipedia, making the project as a whole stronger
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:INTROTODELETE||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: a viable spinout of Terms of endearment but trim to BlueLinks if u feel you must. I think it fits, and most exemplifies, the :Category:Lists of phrases|Cat. Besides, shoving it through AFD |again and again seems to be getting it more references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: Any such list that omits ''chuck''—which has the authority of both ''Macbeth'' and Wallace and Gromit|Wallace—doesn't deserve to live. Oh, and it's also indiscriminate, unmaintainably broad, and essentially a collection of mostly unsourceable reverse dicdefs (and therefore not an encyclopedic topic). Fails , , and other guidelines. The closing admin at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 18|DRV specifically left the door open for an immediate renomination, so I see nothing wrong with this AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT||WP:OR)

Comment: Disruptive renomination per our |deletion policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: per . &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: as the article has continued to be improved since the "Keep" of the 1st AfD and the "no consensus" of the 2nd AfD. I feel that the improvements to the article in keeping with guideline and policy merit a definite keep. That aside, and in considering the very recent 2nd AfD, it is cogent to quote : "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: Please read .  I realise you don't like the decision to retain this article, but I think you need to accept it with good grace
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)

Comment: Yet another |indiscriminate list.  This list violates  as the topic is too broad for a list article.  Anything anybody has said as a term of endearment can fit in this list and who are we to judge what stays in and what gets left out when the topic is so broad
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:SALAT)