Deletion of T. G. Mohandas (2nd nomination)

Comment: or perhaps suggest no consensus with option to re-nom in 2 months) Going through early sources in the article I am just finding  but I observe possible bias in content lifted from the those articles and failing to give fuller context.  While  appears failed there is some merit in cover otherwise.  The AfD seems disrupted by by !votes by accounts little history or perhaps a vague wave at trying to accumulate a little history.  I was going for ''Weak keep'' but the keep arguments don't counter the delete arguements well.  Poor citations don't help; and if non-English language with poor incomplete citations (no trans-title or english quotes and of key points) are being used to cover content.  Along with the bias of content taken from the article this is probably just about a delete.  but there are real issues with people interfering with the article and having battles behind the scenes here.  In fact I've looked at the previous AfD and with that I've enough for a weak keep, just.  This AfD has been severely afflicted by Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and I'd suggest peoples take a break
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NPOL)

Comment: Nothing has changed since the last deletion nomination. Still meets . (https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/290817/t-g-mohandas-tweet-on-church-rings-alarm.htmlhttps://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2016/aug/09/Mohandas-is-convenerBJP-intellectual-cell-1507161.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject fails , . Also, there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails  too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:JOURNALIST||WP:GNG)