Deletion of Lee Fang (3rd nomination)

Comment: For the second time in a month!  This nomination seems rather |pointy, given that the previous one just closed and nothing has changed.  No new information is presented in this nomination, so the arguments remain the same.  No valid reason for deletion is demonstrated.  The article is about an author that writes for several highly notable publications, and whose work and person have been discussed by notable publications
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Editors beware the third nomination! But, really, there should a rule about bringing up an AfD so soon after the last one has failed to win over minds. In fact, the more we improve the article, the more this is becoming an exercise in futility. I will grant you that Fang is ABSOLUTELY DESPISED by his opponents but that SHOULD NEVER be an issue here! At least, the nominator, who was a participant in the last nomination, is trying to improve his argumentation from his previous attempt to point out fault with  and failed. Fang is, in fact, getting more and more coverage about his reporting: See this one-on-one interview with Thom Hartmann, who is RT host of the "Big Picture". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dySJF4iRds RT The Big Picture YouTube channel, part one and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dySJF4iRds The Big Picture, part two (May 6, 2013) aptly called "Conversations with Great Minds"! The same source interviews Lee Fang about his allegation of how a conservative organization roughed up him and another reporter while reporting, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QADjOQIBUIg ALEC v. Lee Fang in 2011
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)