Deletion of Nicholas Alahverdian (2nd nomination)

Comment: Because there are criteria for  that are not met here. This is not one event, this is twenty years of sustained, significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources.  The first article published about him was April '02. The coverage has remained since that point in time, and has ranged from his lawsuit (one event), to his lobbying and advocacy (an entirely separate event), to his political advising (another event), and other events as documented in the article (yet more events).  Also see Wikipedia:What_is_one_event|WP: What is one event? -- This is not 15 minutes of fame. This is nearly two decades of sustained significant coverage about someone who has had many roles documented and validated by news sources and other evidence.  While he may have been a litigant in a newsworthy case, he was also written about in reliable news sources for his legislative advocacy, for the abuse he suffered at the hands of the state (which is a separate event, covered by multiple national news sources including the Associated Press and Politifact, among others), for inspiring the filing of multiple bills to stop the practices (also covered in the news, yet another event, his work as a political advisor (also covered in the news and another event), his work at Harvard (also covered within the context of articles), and his work in other fields (as included in the article).  This is the antithesis of "15 minutes of fame." This is not, as the guideline states, "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days". In short, back in 2012 it was said of this man, and this is quoted in the article, that "“regardless of what happens in federal court or at the State House, Alahverdian has left his mark. Night-to-night placement has been ended forever. And Manatee Palms, the Florida facility where Alahverdian experienced so much abuse, is no longer used by DCYF. Alahverdian, I have to believe, had something to do with those changes.”" He clearly has had an impact on state policy and practice, and while he has left his mark he has also engaged in other newsworthy events that have been properly sourced and meets the bar set in : "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I believe I can say without contention that this topic has received significant coverage. Reliable sources independent of the subject have been provided (Politifact, AP, NBC News affiliate, CBS news affiliate, Boston Globe, Providence Journal, Rhode Island State House Press Office &c).  This has been over seventeen years of news coverage about multiple events and thus fails . It is thus "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" see 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)

Comment: See: : "If a topic has received '''significant coverage''' in '''reliable sources''' that are '''independent of the subject''', it is ''presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article'' or list." The topic, Alahverdian, has received sustained significant coverage from the Associated Press, The Providence Journal, CBS WPRI 12, NBC WJAR 10, The New Haven Register, GoLocalProv, The Boston Globe, and other news entities. The aforementioned news organizations are "reliable sources" -- unquestionably. Further, they are clearly independent of the subject. To deny otherwise is to insult the journalistic integrity of the reporters who have authored the articles that form the backbone of this wikipedia article. Beyond this, the subject of this article is considered a writer in his own right, his opinion having been published in New England's second largest daily newspaper after the Boston Globe. Seventeen years of sustained, detailed coverage with articles that are about this man and do not mention him just in passing are sure to be sufficient to meet the criteria for significant, sustained coverage. To say that there has not been sustained coverage and to claim that there is insufficiently significant coverage is to admit that the sources, links, archives, and research by myself and others has not been adequately analyzed by those who are making those erroneous judgements because, as one can see, the articles are numerous, detailed, historic, and cumulatively meet the criteria for . Indeed, I repeat: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. To say otherwise after 17 years of coverage with exclusive articles written by award-winning journalists at multiple media entities is to ignore the evidence presented in the sourced article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject of article fails as per  because he clearly lacks  significant coverage in reliable source. @{{u|Lightburst}} when did being an Harvard Alumnus constitute notability? Furthermore article calls him an author and he surely falls short of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDEPTH||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: can someone explain why exactly he's not a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Several of the accounts that have contributed to this AfD on the "keep" side are |single-purpose accounts. Even "Fifthavenuebrands", who I have not tagged as an SPA here, has very few contributions outside of this AfD and a slew of pro-forma "delete" votes on other current AfD debates. I have performed a CheckUser on several of these accounts, discovered that they were using VPNs or proxies to edit, and have blocked those VPN / proxy services. The closing admin may wish to take this into account
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)