Deletion of John Florescu (2nd nomination)

Comment: This was also discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 19.  To be fair, the nominator there was encouraged to write a new article, so this isn't really |forum shopping, but I will note that they were selective about which suggestions they acted on (i.e. writing a new article) and which they didn't (i.e. supplying the new information which they asserted had come to light
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:FORUMSHOP)

Comment: nom couldn't have put it better.   suggests possible 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:OVERCITE||WP:COI)

Comment: the article creator tried to put this up at DRV, claiming "significant new information" had come up since the prior consensus to delete, but not bothering to state what this new information was or how they intended to source it.  All available evidence points to this being a vanity/spam article for a non-notable person, almost certainly created by someone with a |conflict of interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)