Deletion of Paul Nehlen (3rd nomination)

Comment: nbsp; A check on Google news shows that the top three links are 3 hours old, 7 hours old, and 7 hours old.&nbsp; I also checked on Google books, and see that the topic has coverage there.&nbsp; {{pb}}The last (second) "AfD" was a classic case of a non-deletion content discussion that spiraled out of control into a delete.&nbsp; Considering that the nominator was not a delete !vote and one commentor advocated keeping, seven editors !voted delete, while seven advocated to not delete.&nbsp; Three of the deletes there cited BLP1E, which is totally inapplicable as BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals, and even when applicable is a merge argument.&nbsp; The third !vote asserts, "Multiple non-notable acts do not add to notability."...This is not helpful, since ''coverage'' of "acts" accumulates.&nbsp; The fifth delete !vote claims that the "keep" !votes haven't done enough to satisfy him/her, even though this was a non-deletion discussion.{{pb}}The eletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete#4 states in bold, '''When in doubt, don't delete'''.&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)

Comment: The article should ''not'' be kept, and it sounds like multiple editors are hesitant to delete only because the subject person may ''become'' notable later.  If people don't want to lose the work that's been done, the answer is simple:  rafts|Move the article to draftspace.  That way there will be less effort, ''if the subject person ever becomes notable'', to restore the content already prepared.  Editors who said "Postpone" should be !voting to RAFTIFY, not keep. (To be clear, if not draftified, in the alternative I would !vote '''strong delete''' per  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D||WP:DRAFTIFY||WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: subject has enough reliable third-party coverage to pass  in my opinion, but I would not be opposed to it being moved to a draft space if it comes to that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: We do not keep stuff on a "wait and see" basis just because the topic might become more notable in a year than he is today — we judge an article's notability and keepability entirely on the matter of whether he already clears an inclusion standard ''today'' — and non-winning candidates are not more notable than the norm just because of who's endorsed them, either.  also needed, because this coming back so quickly after the second discussion plainly shows that people are planning to simply ignore AFD consensus about him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: per  subject isn't notable outside of some recent news stories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)