Deletion of Bloviate (3rd nomination)

Comment: the problem with the arguments made in the original AFD is the article is unreferenced beyond the dictionary definition.  Any additional material int he article beyond the definition doesn't meet  because it's not referenced.  The history here appears to be original research
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Wiktionary wikt:bloviate. I find the information beyond |dictionary-style content to be |trivial. Does it benefit an encyclopedia user to learn that the word is used in the ''New York Times'' and ''The O'Reilly Factor
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD||WP:TRIV)

Comment: Every stub article starts are looking like a definition, what separates them is how far they can be taken beyond that definition . This article is little more than a definition coupled with some unreferenced claims. The nominator is spot on here.  This is and there is no indication that it will ever be anything more than a definition.  Looking over the previous AFDs there was a lot of   discussions along with many editors pointing to the topic's .  It's 3 1/2 years later and the article really hasn't improved much
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:POTENTIAL)