Deletion of John Basedow (2nd nomination)

Comment: The prior AFD raised issues of notability, sourcing, and wording which the current version that I've drafted addresses. The amount of spam an article does/doesn't receive is not an inclusion criteria. If it's a concern, then  applies. A lot of these comments reflect 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:PROTECT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The subject passes the notability threshold with sources such as the ones from ''http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/04/entertainment/et-basedow4 The LA Times'' and ''http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/01/nyregion/long-island-journal-384091.html The New York Times''. There are pro-subject neutrality issues for sure--best known for his "signature washboard abs?" c'mon, not even verifiable--but they don't strike me as so widespread as to warrant |blowing up the whole article. There is salvageable material in there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:BLOWITUP)

Comment: per ; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance; this article exists strictly to promote the subject. The language is puffed up and the article is not neutral. Keeping such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)