Deletion of Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination)

Comment: To quote the |deletion review page "Deletion review review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions."  As far as I'm aware no-one is disputing the original deletion or the decision reached so deletion review is not the appropriate venue.  The article having been recreated G4 should have (and was) considered but, in my opinion, correctly deemed not appropriate as the article, having been improved, no longer met the "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" #G4|criteria and I also believe it was no longer "substantially identical" to the original.  Both of these are matters of interpretation but per |deletion policy "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions" therefore I feel this article has ended up in the right venue.  Disclosure: I removed the speedy tag the second time after it was inappropriately re-added as it had been removed by someone other than the page creator (i.e. at the time I removed it again on process grounds not on its merits).  However I have also stated that I was not adverse to another AfD.  My view on whether this article should be deleted is below
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV||WP:CSD||WP:DP)

Comment: Delete or Keep, it's clearly got / issues
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Nothing has changed since the first AfD.  still applies. The article should have gone to deletion review instead of being reposted, and it still remains substantially the same as its prior incarnation despite promises of enhancements and a raft of new coverage. There has in fact been minimal follow up coverage in the local media, just a handful of reports of his indictment and fringe coverage related to honouring of officers.Further to the NPOV problems, for an apparently non-terrorism related incident, the word terror (including  derivatives) is used an incredible 18 times throughout the article, 5 of which are in the second paragraph. This is clearly being used as a  for other issues such as conspiracy theories about the authorities definition of terrorism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: I believe that  and  apply.  While there is ongoing coverage it is, in my opinion, routine coverage of an ongoing judicial process and so still one event.  If the subject gets substantial coverage that is independent of an event in the case then I may re-consider but while they continue to get coverage only when routine events in the case occur I do not believe it is sufficient to meet the exception in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)