Deletion of John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination)

Comment: The previous AfD was closed yesterday (with the comment "I could relist this discussion, but it is has already become quite unpleasant") after being relisted twice. How on earth is another AfD appropriate? This is just effectively yet another relisting which will probably also lead to unpleasantness, which makes no sense at all. Also, given the opinions expressed by a clear majority (7 to 2) in the discussion it should blatantly have been closed as a keep, not a no consensus - such a large majority cannot legitimately be brushed off without appearing to supervote. But I shall repeat exactly what I said the first time. An obituary in ''The Times'' (or another major national newspaper of record) has always been considered sufficient for notability. This consensus has been established over many AfDs and many years. The other sources, especially ''Who's Who'', merely add to . Given this opinion has been attacked by those who are clearly incapable of being civil if their desire to delete, delete, delete, is challenged, and doubtless will be again, I have no real desire to enter into any further discussion about this, but my opinion stands. But just to reiterate, I believe a re-nomination so quickly is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia and an undermining of our processes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I think |there are enough citations of high quality to prove this person meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: 1. He has an entry in UK Who's Who:  states that "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." this links to the Biographical Dictionary article which states that a "biographical dictionary is a type of encyclopedic dictionary limited to biographical information. Many attempt to cover the major personalities of a country (with limitations, such as living persons only, in Who's Who, or deceased people only, in the Dictionary of National Biography). Others are specialized, in that they cover important names in a subject field, such as architecture or engineering
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Why so serious? Actually I don't want to vote again I've too tired for arguments because of  gang.  As I said in pervious AfD, there is enough to meet WP:GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Onel5969 What is your problem? I'm not very experienced user but i know that AfD is not a weapon. This AfD is consensus after three times relisted. The AfD has been closed for less than 24 hours. You should wait at least 7 days (or one month) to open new afD. You are a strong delete voter from previous AfD and you didn't accept your loss. What is the community value of these  AfDs? Why people are using AfD as a Weapon ?  is everywhere. Shame on you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKE)