Deletion of Cleveland steamer (9th nomination)

Comment: Not only has there been enough |reliable sources that have written enough about his topic to create a |neutral article which now has one of the highest citations-per-text ratios I've ever seen on Wikipedia, but it has also been scrutinized by the Federal Communications Commission as to its obscenity on the ''Deminski & Doyle|Deminski & Doyle Show ''.http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-71A1.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NEUTRALITY)

Comment: Per the other '''''eight''''' nominations. While it does resemble a dicdef somewhat, it is sourced and appears to be notable. Clearly a  nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: On both of the above) I have no opinion on this article... I couldn't care less about the content, so your magical ability to read inbetween the subtext must be flawed, especially, as if you look closely at the actual words i use, "it is a dictionary (length) article, and impossible to make encyclopedic" (these can be found in my nomination, not just in your imaginations), i have stated the reason i believe the article needs deleting. If you can profer some way in which the article could become more than a dictionary definition, then fair enough, I would love to see an article improved instead of deleted! However (as stated in the written text of my nomination, where i didn't give any opinion on the article), i don't believe (and no one has given possiblities as to where) it can be improved. Notability and Verification are of course '''not''' points of discussion, because i cleary accept both in my Nomination! Just as i accept that the word "the" is a word, however, notice it doesn't have a page dedicated completely to it, because there can be no serious content for just it. Also, the number of nominations should not affect your Vote, and saying "Per the other '''''eight''''' nominations" is not useful to the current discussion. If you feel there are any points in previous discussions relating to how this article can be improved or in what way it isn't a DICDEF (Note, once again incase you missed it, i have accept the  and  on this article too many times to count), please post them and help the discussion move along. I apologize if i seem condescending, but i find it incredibly rude when you jump in, claim notability without reading my nomination, blatently ignore the thought i put into AfDing this in order to improve Wikipedia, and accuse me of letting my opinion () affect me, when clearly it hasn't
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Per all the sources in the article, Oakshade's FCC citation, and out of respect for all the editors who have weighed in a previous ''eight'' times.  There's clearly not a consensus to delete it, this is to me becoming too much 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP: IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: NINTH nomination?  Seriously?  The nominator has basically stated that the subject matter passes .  It clearly passes .  This is a blatant  nomination.  This nomination should be closed re:  and .  &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SNOW||WP:POINT)