Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cabal (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. There does not seem to be a strong consensus either way; I've discounted some comments on both sides, and the argument appears to be boiling down to how strictly one judges a source's reliability. I would recommend some work be done on the references either way, so that hopefully future AfD's can be avoided. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal

AfDs for this article:
Alan Cabal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article at first blush appears to have reliable sources to establish notability but when you look at them they're either blogs, or trivial mentions, or from early 1990s BBS' that no longer exist. The general feel is of an elaborate joke being played. At any rate, this article was deleted once before [1], and upheld at deletion review [2]. The level of current sourcing seems no better than the past versions. I'm not prodding this because i'm fairly certain that would be contested Bali ultimate (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: The fact that the majority of the non-notable articles he wrote were for the new york press seems hardly relevant, one way or the other.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin: The majority of the links are for the New York Press, which is notable and has its own wikipedia entry.travb (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must express my gratitude for the amusement that both the page and the arguments against it have provided me. "Stealthepiscopalian" is an idiot: I didn't write the article, and I have never used "Manhattan Samurai" as an alias. Anyone with the research skills of a competent high school student could verify that. The funniest material here is the assertion that "Cabal" is an improbable surname and the truly retarded assertion that I "won" an appearance on The Patty Duke Show in a radio contest. That material from the article is also verifiable by anyone with minimal research skills. This sort of puffery and buffoonery is why Wikipedia is generally considered an unreliable source by professional journalists. Thanks for the laughs! ---Alan Cabal (email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.29.146 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you come here (assuming this is the non-notable Mr. Cabal) to cast insults and make a backhanded argument for keeping "your" article. Amusing indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion lends itself to insults on an otherwise boring Saturday afternoon. It reminds me of high school. I don't make "backhanded arguments", I crap on the carpet, blow my nose in the curtains, and head for the nearest biker bar. ---AC

You know a good biker bar with wi-fi in manhattan? That's the sort of info that might encourage me to withdraw my nomination.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Hells Angels Manhattan digs are here: 40.72516300, -73.98829600, there has to be a bar nearby... Proxy User (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Cuban, like my demented adoptive father. It has no relation to the English word, "cabal." Clive Barker might have been onto something, but as a murderous Communist born-again, you wouldn't know about that. I do like your vicious assaults on automobile drivers, though. ---AC

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find very unlikely that the article was not written by its subject. Take for instance the last paragraph: "Bemoaning the loss of its iconoclastic edge, Cabal resigned from the New York Press on March 3, 2005, the day after the newspaper ran a controversial satire by Matt Taibbi titled "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope"". This bit of information is sourced from a comment made by Alan Cabal himself on an article in Fast Company. The article itself didn't mention Alan at all; Fast Company allows blog type replies to articles. That's where Alan posted his view, which is used as source in the wiki article. You'd have to be a berserk fan of Alan Cabal to know where to look for this or, far more likely, Alan himself. It all reads like an embittered out of work journalist is trying to pen his own epitaph. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xasodfuih must be suffering from roid rage. I'm about as "embittered" as a raccoon in a Whole Foods dumpster, and I am currently insanely overemployed building stage sets out here in California. I haven't written anything in years. Say something once, why say it again? I am feeling somewhat vindicated by 2008. I didn't write any of it. ---AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.9.137 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I knew there had to shady stuff going on here, but this is impressive. So, I can post something on blog somewhere as a reply to some article that isn't about me, and then use my blog post as a source for a fact in an article about myself? By that standard anyone can become notable by spamming some blogs with posts and quoting them on Wikipedia. Who knows why he's not working for NYP, maybe they've fired his ass for trolling. Iridescent, since you're and admin, shouldn't you be more worried that MS seems to be evading his block? Or that he's attacking other editors right on this page? Or are you a fan of his? Xasodfuih (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of him and have no opinion on this article. Do you see any "keep" from me here? Go read WP:COI and WP:AGF before you take this conversation any further. – iridescent 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""speedy keep -- Manhattan Samurai cohould have an upportunity to defend this article and his good name for othese unsourced accausiatons of evading blcoks and sockpuppeting. has he been notified of this thread or of these allegations bein directed towards his personalization? And this article has already survived 1 article-for-deletion and 1 deletion review; these repetated nominatins are bodrdering on WP:POINTy. Notability, reliable sources, and verifiability exist in the necessar y quantifiabities and in fact exist in overabundance. this is growing absolute. Smith Jones (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. What's left now is generally verifiable information. No need to delete this. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prevvious deleton from which iw spoke was true, but the deletion revie wa sclsoed at our behest. Manhattan Samurai and i collaboed with an admin to have the aritcle draft placed on my userpage;ffrom there, we were able to conduct an extensive revison of the text therein and redefined the articles so that they fight within the Wikipedian parameters. as a result of this work, the article currently meats all applicalbe standards from which you derive your theyfacto objections and therefore it should be kept. Please re-revise the sources as yuo clearly did not look clearly enough that athem to derive the correct ascertation as to their compliance with the rules. Smith Jones (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment would al oyu mind citing your sources that say that alan cabal was cnnected with this article in anyway shape or form? there is noe vidence to even suggest that he has ever been on wikipedia, much less been a part o the work that i sused to create this article. please cite your sources/evidence or please sotp with the WP:ABF attempts as they might be conidserd as a distracting element in this process. Smith Jones (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Bylines aren't bios. The sources we are meant to build this biography from are pretty thin, and we tend to delete biographies on journalists whose most famous google hits are their works, not themselves. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - per nom Theserialcomma (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - non-notable. sources are blogs or trivial mentions. this was afd'd before and the current version is the authorrs attempts grasping at straws to fill the reference section. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CLOSING ADMIN PLEASE NOTE: I removed much of the material that was the concern of the above editors. Could you userfy this page before your delete it? Most of the links are from the New York Press, a notable publication. I note: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." It is obvious that this article has problems, but why not improve it, or discuss the problems on the talk page first? The policy WP:PRESERVE states, Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to... This was never done. travb (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as being properly sourced and well written, despite any WP:UGH !votes. And allegations about authorship matter not as the article now belongs to Wiki. Going down the list of current references, and with respects to the nom, New York Press, Details (magazine), New York Times, Daily News, Fast Company (magazine), Time (magazine), Institute for Historical Review, Arts and Letters Daily, Adelaide Institute, Rheingold.com, wymaninstitute.org, and the multiple books being referenced are not blogs. Repeated claims that these sources are blogs seems indefensible. I ask the closing admin to take careful note of those. The subject easily passes WP:AUTHOR despite his subject matter being decried. Further, and to address some of the other WP:WAX arguments for deletion: Even were it to be confirmed (and it has not been... only alleged), authoring one's own article is NOT against policy NOR against guideline... just discouraged because of concerns for POV and COI... which are now a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Bylines aren't bios is an interesting way to opine delete... as the article is sourced to bios and the "bylines" WP:Verify his being an author... and the "g-hits" to his works further underscore his passing WP:AUTHOR. Why is this even here?? Send it to cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails Bio. BigDuncTalk 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask -- no reliable sources establish that he is widely cited as creating a new concept, or has a body of work deemed notable by the profession (or any secondary sources), or in any other way has done anything notable except write some articles that have not achieved wide fame, acclaim, or infamy. Millions of people have written articles. That's why he fails on those criteria.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually wishing to know his reason for such a short response... now he can simply copy-paste yours. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bali ultimate I couldn't have said it better. BigDuncTalk 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So obviously I want this article to stay. I wrote a large part of it with Smith Jones. Alan Cabal is one of New York's great iconoclasts. He was heavily involved in the Occult scene from the 70s all the way into the 90s. Some of the books were used to source the "occult renaissance" that took place during those years, of which he was an integral part. See Christopher Knowles' book Our Gods Wear Spandex for direct linkage of Alan Cabal to the "occult renaissance". He performed on stage in one of Ron Athey's shows (an extreme performance artist) during the 90s. He was heavily involved in OTO's administration and then in the 90s was a part of a fairly significant BBS called Echo. Time magazine includes him in a list of Internet bohemians and online celebrities in the very first sentence of an article about a Hacker Homecoming. Then there was the band White Courtesy Telephone that he and some friends formed and their story is described in a Details magazine article called "Rock 'n Roll Fantasy" written by Rob Tannenbaum. His defense of a controversial historian in 2004 also got him mention in the press. Cabal is an iconoclast. That's all for now. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: These two blog posts at GetReligion.org provided more Alan Cabal-specific sourcing that may be of interest. The contributors are professionals as you can see from their masthead:

  • Jeremy Lott (2005-03-07). "Satanists for standards". GetReligion.org.
  • Jeremy Lott (2005-03-10). "Full court New York Press". GetReligion.org.
*comment Both of the above "sources" are to a blog, that cites a comment Cabal allegedly made in the blog/comment thread of another article. I hope you recognize why these can not be considered reliable sources for anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far there's no evidence that this is properly sourceable. Our own editors' opinions that he's great don't count for anything. Delete unless it can be properly sourced. Hint for those who are encyclopedia-impaired: articles that he wrote are not the same as sources about him. Friday (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject appears to be notable and the article's sourcing looks to be in order. It is difficult to comprehend the vain attempts to obscure the issue of notability with the careless, vague and unsubstantiated COI charges (which, on its own terms, is not a valid reason for deletion). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is certainly verifiable that the subject has written articles for various publications. However, that alone isn't enough to meet either the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for creative proffessionals. Both require some form of independent coverage or commetary (which, as with all Wikipedia content, should be from reliable sources) of either the individual or their work; the article does not make it apparaent that this exists for the subject and that has not changed since the article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cabal six months ago. As Id on;t see the pice developinf from beyond a bibliography/CV into an encyclopaedia article that meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Guest9999 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not per my nomination. I believe this subject, and the article that seeks to reflect it, continues to define non-notability. Others may disagree. But the fact remains: No sufficient reliable sources to establish notability or otherwise enable independent verification of its claims.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I was asking Kim D. Petersen]] for clarification. Your views are known by the act of nomination. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*'cmt excuse ME. But if you ask a question in an AfD anyone is likely to answer it.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understood. I should have made a point in my question that it was directed at that specific editor, and that I was simply trying to get a clarification from him about his comment. Please do not take that as any slight on your own efforts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
clearly the user objec ts primairly to the sourcing on the referencesetction. in which cas e Manhattan Samurai and i jushould be handled a ::few more months to in order to vacate the necessary sources and implantify them into hsi article. as per WP:POLICYSmith Jones (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i can see, you've already had time enough to establish notability. And since that (claimed) notability isn't reflected in the article, my !vote is delete. Notability is the first thing to establish in an article, and that must be reflected in the references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
With respects to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, Wiki has no deadline and AfD's usually run about 5 days. One must grant, especially if one feels there is no notability, that such a search might take more than a few hours. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i have estalbihsed notability and verifabitliy beyond a shadow of doubt. i count at present TEN wrock solid sources present within the aritcle. the fact that they hav eperpetualy been overooked discounted makes them look not to be as useful as they really are Smith Jones (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? Cabal apparently was once a child actor (2 refs), was he a notable child actor? (0 refs). There is one article, where a friend describes his experiences with Cabal (1 ref), Cabal apparently has written one article that has been noted (4 refs). +2 refs that are authored by Cabal. There is no 3rd party biographical material at all..... And you call that rock-solid notable?--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? Is it now required that the article have a lengthy bio? I would think that notability as asserted and sourced is to be found in his career and not his birthplace or education. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, lengthy bio's are not required. But establishing notability is. What is his standing as a journalist? Awards, 3rd party biographies or other 3rd party mentioning etc. etc. Those are the things that establish notability. So far i can determine that he apparently is a journalist, with apparently only one article to his name that is semi-notable, we have some trivia about child-acting. Where is the meat? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far... Zundelsite, April 27 2001, by Ingrid A. Rimland, "Good Morning from the Zundelsite:", where she speaks of Cabal and an article Cabal wrote after his return from the International "Revisionism and Zionism" Conference in Beirut... and The Jewish Press, March 19 2003, a decent little article by senior editor Jasom Maoz, "Media Monitor", where he speaks about Cabal, an email Cabal had sent him, Cabal's work at the New York Press and Cabal's attitude... and The Institute for Historical Review, March 26 2004, "Some Good News in the Zundel Case: Weber On The 'Jeff Rense' Show ", speaking about an interview of Mark Webber by Jeff Rense, where Webber was speaks about Cabal and Cabal's controversial CounterPunch article... and The National Alliance, April 3 2004, "Jewish Supremacism Exposed: An Interview with Mark Weber, part 1, by Kevin Alfred Strom", where Weber speaks in depth about Cabal and the controversial CounterPunch article (not the same interview as April 3)... and The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, "Holocaust Denial: A Global Survey - 2004 by Alex Grobman & Rafael Medoff", where it speaks toward Cabal and his article in the February 2004 issue of CounterPunch... and Get Religion, March 5 2005, by Jeremy Lott, "Full court New York Press", speaking about Cabal, Cabal's resignation from The New York Press and Cabal's controversial views... and still looking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consider Zundelsite a reliable source? The others vary from very brief mentions to slightly less brief mentions. If the only thing people have mentioned is Cabal's article defending a holocaust denier, that can be mentioned elsewhere - it doesn't justify an article on Cabal.--Michig (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, no... I do not. I was only offering what I found. Zundelsite would be an RS only to a Nazi supporter... and that ain't me. I personally deplore anyone who tries to deny that millions died in German death camps, so I have striken that one. The only point here being that for good or bad... Cabal has published for a Notable publication, and received attention (minor but not trivial) for it in other Notable publications. His rudeness in 2003 to The Jewish Press was covered by the senior editor himself. His CounterPunch article made waves and was covered. Hie resignation from the New York Post itself made waves and was covered. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It was "covered" on a blog by a friend of his, sourced to a comment that someone saying they were Alan Cabal left on the comment thread of another article. Waves? Hardly a ripple here.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands this article meets our core policies for content. It is verifiable, neutral and it based on published facts. Alan Cabal is known. He is mentioned by name as being an author. He is quoted. There are enough references of him in various sources to confirm that he is known by name. I don't think it has been seriously doubted in the first AfD or the DRV or this AfD that AC exists or that he is a writer or that he has an internet reputation (there are enough web and book sources for that) - what is doubted is proof of a Wikipedia standard of notability. Wikipedia notability is a community observation based on criteria that emerge from community discussions in places like this AfD. On some topics we have no doubts, and there is no need for discussion. On other topics there is a grey area so we draw up guidelines. The guidelines change as circumstances change and as Wikipedia develops and grows. And the guidelines inform our discussions, but do not rule them. We have a topic here where we have a writer who is known. Clearly. He is mentioned and quoted: [3], [4], [5], [6]. He is used as a source in at least one Wikipedia article - [7], and in other documents - [8]. What is at issue here is if there is enough material available to establish if Alan Cabal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The judgements people are using tend to go back to the exisiting Wikipedia guidelines rather than to examining the actual material we have, and the genuine debate to reach a conclusion. The material is certainly borderline. There is evidence that he is quoted, but the evidence is sometimes such that we are not even sure if it's the same Alan Cabal being mentioned. However, my feeling back at the first AfD, where I changed my mind from Delete to Keep, was that there is enough stuff here to say that people are aware of Cabal and are quoting him. That our current guidelines are written to exclude petty bloggers who write about themselves and then by default also end up excluding the more interesting and noteworthy writers is something that needs attention. In the first AfD there wasn't a clear consensus to delete, but it was deleted, and then the resulting DRV was prevented from a meaningful discussion by Manhattan Samurai's constant interjections which tended to confuse maters and annoy people. I think that under Wikipedia's current notability guidelines Alan Cabal is fairly borderline, and this shows up a need for us to look at those guidelines. Keep, but on the principle of the thing - in the big scheme of things, that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on a writer who has less Ghits than me is no big loss. SilkTork *YES! 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But he still doesn't meet any notability guidelines! Wikipedia is reputable because of its notability guidelines and statements like "That our current guidelines are written to exclude petty bloggers who write about themselves and then by default also end up excluding the more interesting and noteworthy writers is something that needs attention." are far off the mark as Wikipedia isn't intended as a vehicle of promotion. It's intended to document the existing notability of people, not create notability of the petty bloggers without any established reputation. Themfromspace (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - it was a long comment, and I don't blame anyone for getting lost. My point is that the article meets our core content policies. There is a debate about notability. The guidelines are there as the summary of previous discussions to help inform us during current discussions. The guidelines do not decide if an article should remain or not. We do that in our discussion that is taking place here. It has become clear in all three discussions that have taken place on this article that the guidelines are not helpful enough in this case, and that this is borderline. It's helpful in borderline cases where existing guidelines are not clear or helpful enough, or are potentially failing, that we seek to examine the case on its merits - and possibly from the resulting discussion to adjust or strengthen our notability guidelines. In order to make Wikipedia a valuable and navigatable resource, as well as keeping our credibility by not having articles on the dog next door, we try to decide amongst ourselves as a community what we feel is worthwhile or notable. In borderline cases we tend to default to keep. But we do not seek to deliberately exclude articles on people who are quoted and mentioned by name in several published texts that we have classed as reliable. The current wording of the guidelines seeks to exclude people who are simply mentioned in passing, and the situation here is that there is a lack of focus in the mentions. However, there are more than one mentions and quotes. And these are backed up by considerable internet blog mentions. We don't regard blogs as reliable - however, in any discussion we are not ruled by the guidelines (and please go into the guidelines to look at the wordings which always strive to make it clear that the notability decisions should be thought about and that the guidelines are not the last letter of the law, but are simply "guidelines"), and we use common sense. We have an author who is mentioned on numerous "big name" blogs, is mentioned and quoted in reliable sources, and who is a verifiable author. It's the accumulation of all these things that indicates that the person is notable enough for a standalone article. I hope that's a bit clearer! SilkTork *YES! 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exuc seme??? How is alan Cabal being a pretty bloggeR? do you have a idea you has dealing with??? This is a man who has worke dfor CounterPunch magazine estenveiyly as well as the New York Times.
his is a moderately promenent literatist and writer who has contributed to some fairly not able scandals. i agree that he is no t as famous :as comse other users but then against several people like Anderson Cooper and evne john King wh o have written fewer works than Mr :Cavbal. He is not som e pretty blogger; he is a hardworking and moderately well-respected writer in the world ladder and he desrves a :wikipedia article celarly according to the standards that have been promulgated within this dimension AND not any othe rstandard superimposed offer our prexisting principles. we Can't create new standards at will in order to exlcude some people like this it doesnt work like such this manner Smith Jones (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me this seemed quite borderline and I simply intended to,as usual ignore the AfD. I them remembered This tool. By my crude calculations there are approx 7200 a lot of requests to find out more information about him each year. An online encyclopedia should not ignore its users. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a strange argument... My userpage here on wikipedia has had more requests than that... So should i have an article as well? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your article will get a lot less hits than your user page. (User; Article) Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting argument but you neglect the page views seen by Wikipedia editors. This page has been edited quite a bit in the past year and if you take the number 7200 (which you crossed out) as a starting guesstimate, that would equate to almost 20 pageviews a day. I'm guessing at least 5 a day would come from Wikipedia editors, and I alone have probably looked at this page a few dozen times since I started dealing with it. Also note that January 08 (as of this posting) has seen the most traffic of all the months (by far), with almost 500 pageviews between the days of 01/12 and 01/13. This is most certainly caused by the current discussion about the article. In comparison with his popularity on Wikipedia, hardly anybody in the real world is on the lookout for him. Themfromspace (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Amazon.com. The name appears in multiple published sources, which means it's a notable name. Some of these may be different people, but in that case we would still at least make a disambiguation page. Moreover, looking at the Amazon.com results, an Alan Cabal is actually covered on page 167 of The Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film: Ali Baba to Zombies, which means it's encyclopedic per our First pillar. So, we should have some kind of article on this particular name. Whether or not it is focused on one person or as a disambugation page is a discussion for the article's talk page. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while this article has considerably improved from earlier versions, it nonetheless does not, in its present form, pass WP:BIO. It has plenty of sources written by Cabal, but few written about him, which is what the notability guideline requires - and basically none in reliable sources. He may have attracted attention from 'internet forums and blogs', but I can't see any evidence that he has been the subject of articles in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 05:01, 15 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137548858"