Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Necrothesp, 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)