Deletion of Fjordman (3rd nomination)

Comment: as per the discussion in the previous two AfDs. The concerns raised by Cs32en being valid or not, the AfD is ill advised as a first step in an improvement process of the encyclopedia. That said, lets be careful not to engage in |systemic bias by pushing for a threshold of notability that is US-centric. I also '''strongly oppose a merge''' as fjordman's notability predates and is unrelated to the 2011 Norway attacks, even if the event has increased his/her profile... but profile and notability are not the same thing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: If sufficient independent, third-party coverage for Fjordman can be found, then an article on Fjordman will be fine. At that point, the article can also reflect primarily what the reliable sources say, instead of serving as a soapbox for Fjordman and as a |linkfarm for Fjordman's and other right-wing blogs.&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM)