Deletion of Martin Concepcion (2nd nomination)

Comment: procedurally as this should have been a / and '''Delete''' on  grounds - I agree with the delete !voters in the first AfD, specifically Papaursa's vote, on the quality of the sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G4||WP:G5||WP:GNG)

Comment: well, since  and  speedies have been declined on frivolous grounds we'll have to do this the long way. The first AfD found that there was not enough substantial, reliable sourcing to sustain this article. The new incarnation, started by a sockpuppet of a banned editor, is largely identical to the deleted version except for the removal of a copyright violation. Obviously the situation regarding notability hasn't changed since last time, and looking at the state of the sourcing I think the previous AfD got it right
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G4||WP:G5)

Comment: I have no particular opinion on , but the objections to  and  are just plain silly.  This clearly meets both of those, so adding my !vote to delete as a protest against excessive wikilawyering.  I would delete this myself under those grounds, but letting this AfD run to its obvious conclusion will leave a more clear consensus for the future
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:G4||WP:G5)