Deletion of Homer Public Library (3rd nomination)

Comment: with all local sources, coverage does not meet  requirement of . The last AfD was four years ago, it is not unreasonable to revisit it now. Also  is a ridiculous accusation. What other forum was this brought to? AfD is the appropriate forum for this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUD||WP:ORG||WP:FORUMSHOP)

Comment: Look through past Afd , same nominator, same kind of starting "this is my library, but I don't think it should be an article, the the other people (after relisting once) managed to find sources. Then say GNG meet. Then closed as keep. This pattern is almost identical here. For clarity, let us just use normal GNG criteria. https://newspaperarchive.com/ryan-semendinger-other-articles-clipping-mar-11-1996-665354/ = AP ('''not local'''), one significant, independant source and that's it. Others are all dead links, trivial coverage. I will try to search Google till now https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=Homer_Public_Library&rlz=1C1CHBF_enSG790SG790&ei=8HPzWpGCJYK0vwTPy5GYAg&start=70&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=652 nothing significant I can find. 1 good source yes I cannot deny. For LEED, this is the page that should be added http://www.alaskajournal.com/community/2007-04-22/homer-library-awarded-leed-silver-certification#.WvN0XYiFPNM. Marginal source but LEED is an award that cannot be discarded. He is not  but just no solid arguments
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:FORUMSHOP)

Comment: this subject has been through AFD twice already and both times closed as clear "keep" -- I see no new information introduced here as the argument of "it's small" was already made.  I'm seeing some sources that appear to pass  to me so I don't see any policy violation.  Without any new reason, this looks a whole lot like 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FORUMSHOP)