Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cabal (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal

Delete Not notable per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Author only has mentions in blog articles or in articles that are not solely about him. Just because one has a lot of publications does not make those publications notable. The article has been deleted before for these faults [1] and the decision was upheld at deletion review.[2] Nothing has changed in this version of the article except that even more non notable sources are cited. Ave Caesar (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the most recent decision was the no-consensus 2 months ago. I said weak keep at the time & I still do. He's a notable columnist for an important alternative paper, with notable articles, though the formal sources are a little weak. I'm not really happy with using strict criteria to rule out people from fields where the sources are going to be somewhat informal. DGG (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion of notability is not proof of notability, however. Particularly in this case it is not proven within WP standards. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These references are really not overwhelming. One long, rambling car trip in the New York Post, a blog about his band that doesn't mention him, a brief mention (just one paragraph, no in-depth discussion) in the Wyman Holocaust denial report, another passing mention in a letter by Zundel. The strongest of all these refs is that article on the Institute for Historical Review site--but I have doubts about their independence. In sum, it seems to me that we have a person really notable for one event (besides a car trip to the Jersey shore), and that one event does not appear to be covered in reliable sources in an in-depth manner. Now, if they guy is such a notable columnist, why can't we find reliable sources that discuss him and his work? Drmies (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried to think fairly about this. Perhaps i've failed. But as a journalist, he's received no independent coverage at all. There are in fact no independent sources about him (the car trip with his pal in a free weekly is about it). Of no encyclopedic relevance. If his comments on the holocaust denier zundel are relevant, they already have a home in the zundel article.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no significant independent coverage, and little claim to notability.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing has improved since the last AfD, except for the blocking of some abusive accounts. None of the improvements establish notability. Fails WP:BIO of any shade. Verbal chat 07:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. This is an article which has clearly had its chance and simply can't be brought up to standard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. As I said previously, nothing has been written about him, which is what's required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nothing has been done to establish notability since the last debate. Themfromspace (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible canvassing problem: Ikip Smith_Jones Xasodfuih Jmundo Lucian_Sunday A_Nobody MichaelQSchmidtFlyingToaster. The contents of the message appears neutral, but the list of editors appears to have been selected with a motive.01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sock. Already blocked. If you're willing Kww, why not delete your comment on this (nothing to be done about it now) and if you agree, you can delete my response at the same time per RBI. Bali ultimate (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't unring a bell. Everyone will still get the orange bar, and still dig through their messages to figure out why.—Kww(talk) 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasonings and discussions as at the last AfD. Nothing has changed except perhaps interested editors do not realize it is once more on the block. No doubt it will be returned to a 4th or 5th AFD if there is another no consensus keep here. And I really do not wish to have to dredge up the sources offered from the last AfD, but will if it is absolutely required. And yes, I was notified about this discussion, but the article is already on my watch list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has had a few chances already and still doesn't meet notability guidelines. I don't see what help any more time would be. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, more time will help more socks come out. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close; trim the WP:PUFF and the article disappears. THF (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing anything different now to when this article was originally deleted, and that deletion upheld by DRV. --Stormie (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the article be deleted as it stands and given the general reliability of Wikipedia as a source. If you have any questions or issues regarding my feelings on this matter, feel free to contact me at al_cabal@yahoo.com.

Thank you,

Alan Cabal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.16.183 (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources indicating notability. As the individual notes on a previous Afd: "I'm not a journalist, I'm a polemicist. Fucking Cassandra is what I am, heh." It would seem to me that if you want to self-identify as such, one had better show that the larger world actually notes what you are saying. I see no indication of that -- outside the Institute for Historical Review holocaust denial camp -- in the references. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here of significance. Eusebeus (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.