Deletion of Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Comment: Article just survived an RfD that proposed merging it without a redirect, which was functionally equivalent to deletion.  It's survived three previous AfDs plus an aborted AfD proposed by this editor while the aforementioned RfD was in process.  Based on the RfD voting and previous results, there's not a snowball's chance that this AfD will pass.  The "it's an attack page" argument has been advanced repeatedly in the past ''without success or consensus''. The nomination comes close to being y.  I am trying to AGF really ''really'' hard but all I can think is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:STICK)

Comment: Delete''' violates    - after reviewing the history and background, changed my opinion on the matter.  Santorum has been maligned by this sex advice columnist but does appear to have achieved notability and not a BLP violation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:BLP)

Comment: The article seems contrary to numerous policies including , ,  and .  It generally seems quite outrageous and maintaining this blatant attack page while the subject is a high-profile presidential candidate seems likely to bring the project into disrepute
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:NPOV||WP:BLP||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: And groan. The subject of the page passes . What is needed now is editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Current name is per consensus, is notable, and when the |recentism dies down it will be reduced to a reasonable size (or maybe before). I dislike the senator's opinions, I dislike the sex-advice columnist's name calling campaign, I dislike how disruptive this has been to Wikipedia, I dislike political activism on Wikipedia, I dislike the gaming of Wikipedia . . . I'll probably think of more things I dislike about this later.  But keep it.  It belongs on Wikipedia. Review the see also section in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:STICK)

Comment: Article passes ,  and POV criteria: nor, as said above multiple times, is it a BLP violation. This has been established by four AfD processes so far -- nothing has changed recently, and merely repeating AfD nominations over and over is not a reasonable response to this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:NPOV)