::Since the sources have recently been cleaned up, and quotations from the sources have been added, to a considerable extent since the last time you called out specific sources which you doubted, I think it would be highly advisable if you would look at the article as it currently stands and give a specific critique (here, on the talk page) of each individual source whose suitability you are challenging.  Note that if a citation is to a source that is generally recognized as being reliable, the burden falls on opponents of the material to show specific, compelling reasons why it is not in fact reliable after all.  A source does not need to be found on the originating news organization's web site in order to be valid; reputable alternative services such as LexisNexis, HighBeam, and the like are routinely permitted here.  The BLP policy does, to be sure, permit some leeway (aggressive proactive removal of poorly sourced contentious material, "consensus cannot override policy", and so forth) — but if a source is generally recognized as being reliable, you (or anyone) would risk sanctions for edit warring, vandalism, etc. if you insist on simply removing a source (and the material it substantiates) without first getting a consensus that the source is bad and should be removed, even if you try to justify your actions via an appeal to the BLP policy.  —  (no relation to Jimbo)