Deletion of Derrick Lonsdale (2nd nomination)

Comment: I've looked at this article, and don't see any authoritative, reliable evidence for encyclopedic notability and would vote '''Delete'''. However, I think taking this matter to  is the correct course for now, given the recent closure of the first AFD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: I don't know what the policy is, but I believe that AfD's closed with a No Consensus To Delete may be tried again, as opposed to those with an actual Keep which either need to go to |deletion review or else to wait a few months before trying again. That said, I don't think its very good form to immediately go right back to AfD. But its "legal" as far as I know. The problem with the guy's article is that it was apparantly copyvio, so I had to cut it back to almost nothing. But I think that it's ''possible'' that he ''may'' be slightly notable as some kind alternative-medicine guy. I thought he had written a book, but I guess not, as it's not listed in the article. Anyway, I'm not voting
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)