Deletion of Nanaho Katsuragi (3rd nomination)

Comment: as out of process and disruptive.  I personally think you are correct that  allowed you to start the second AFD right away, though I also agree that it would have been much better for you to wait a couple months.  However, the close to the second AFD specifically instructed you to wait a couple months.  If you disagreed with that close, the correct forum was |deletion review, not ignoring the AFD close and starting a third AFD.  Just ignoring both the AFD outcome and the proper forum for challenging that outcome is disruptive, and this should thus be speedy kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:NPASR||WP:DELREV)

Comment: per , I have no problem with a neutral party re-nominating this for deletion or having the discussion taken to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:DRV)