Deletion of Cockblock (4th nomination)

Comment: let's take this slowly as it's plainly a bit of a pinkie trap, given the 4 previous AfDs with differing outcomes. Having read through all of them - quite fascinating, actually - it seems that when this topic is written up hastily, it comes across as obviously unencyclopedic and , so everyone agrees to delete. If it's written up over-enthusiastically with graphic detail of how to cockblock,  cuts in and people at once say delete. But if it's written up a bit more subtly with more citations, people angrily insist it's a perfectly valid topic and vote keep! This 5th incarnation is on the  side, by the way, but we could easily add some of the old citations back to confuse matters
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD||WP:HOWTO)

Comment: Wikipedia is 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY)

Comment: In this article's seven-year history, no one has ever put in any information beyond definitions and a trivia like "so-and-so used this word" and "there's a bar named Cockblock in San Francisco". I've read the previous AfD debates, and there was no mention of substance that would be covered by a potential article about this topic; see the first bullet point at . Apparently cockblocking has never received substantial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources; it has only been passingly mentioned here and there (see 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN||WP:GNG)