Deletion of Tariq Nasheed (3rd nomination)

Comment: I can't see how this fails  at all. {{u|Stonksboi}} please can you elaborate on your nomination and explain why the sources are not sufficient, in your opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is no problem with his notability. The edit history of the article shows an obvious dispute between people who are offended by his viewpoints and others trying to avoid |imbalanced coverage of the supposed controversy. That is probably the reason for the neutrality notice at the top. Calling for deletion is probably an act of revenge by someone offended by the man's viewpoints. That can be yelled about (until everyone gets bored and moves on to a newer outrage) in social media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: passes ,  mentionings in US Newspapers like NYT and in CNN+many others, Search for him at Newspapers.com got 167 matches
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject is clearly notable.  The nominator apparently dislikes the subject or thinks that the subject is controversial, but that is not a reason to delete, but to provide |neutral coverage of controversies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: the subject now clearly passes . This was not the case in the past, its very common for an article to be created and deleted multiple times before the topic actually becomes notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)