Deletion of Lyle Stevik (3rd nomination)

Comment: Besides the reasons given above and in the two previous '''lopsided''' AfD discussions, the unsolved nature of this case adds to its notability. What's the point of re-nominating if you're only going to repeat the same failed arguments from the previous two AfDs? That's what  is saying not to do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: This is among the weakest of keeps but two reason pushes me to favor keep. Generally, when an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion over a short period of time the nomination reeks of , I do not think this is the case here. I am very vocal of defending articles subject to repeated nominations, a lack of consensus is a sign of notability. I was unable to access 5 of those sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)