Deletion of Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)

Comment: I see 181 references in that article, roughly half of which are ''not'' to the Rush Limbaugh show.  It is obviously not "statistics" in any sense.  If you have problems with original research you should be trimming sentences, not deleting the article.  For that matter, even if the article were to fail AfD criteria this time, why not just revert the whole article back to the version for AfD Number Three or AfD Number Two when it was ''not'' found to deserve deletion?  People shouldn't be able to keep running an article through the AfD process endlessly until they get "lucky".  And  is an essay, not a policy; nor does it advise indiscriminate deletion; and if we were to start deleting such articles I'd prefer to start with all the featured articles for video games, as they are of much less historical significance than politics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT)

Comment: If the show is popular, the list may be interesting to some, however Wikipedia |is not the right place for it. A fan site or blog would be more appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Primarily for failing  on a massive scale -- Limbaugh's individual insults and intentional mispronunciation of names have not been absorbed into the English language. Maybe a few of the more mischievous or malicious examples can be cited in the main article about Limbaugh, but the article can easily be cut
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Will Beback makes valid points, |verifiability of most of the entries is seriously restricted. On top of that, what are the chances there will ever be ''independent'' references for any of the claims
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)