Deletion of David DeAngelo (second nomination)

Comment: I wouldn't question that DeAngelo is notable within the seduction community; he clearly is.  That's not the question here, though.  The questions are whether he's notable enough for his own article, and whether there is enough material extant to write a biographical article which can pass  and . After digging through all the links, I'm willing to grant the former, sort of.  The Orlando Sentinel article, along with a couple other passing references, is enough to establish that he's been regarded as an expert on seduction outside the seduction community.  His case for notability is not as rock-solid as all the other persons on the list of "Notable members of the seduction community," all of whom have been the subject of reliable articles, but hey, some articles are harder to source than others.  If the only question was one of notability, I'd change my vote. It's the latter question that I'm stuck on.  Is David DeAngelo ''really'' a pseudonym?  I'm quite sure it is.  But where's the published biography?  Is Eben Pagan his real name?  Does he actually have a doctorate?  What's it in?  According to , we could not even assert that David DeAngelo is a pseudonym unless we had a reliable source.  What needs to be remembered here is that the article in question is '''biographical''', which means there are policies which ''must'' be followed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:BLP||WP:BLP)

Comment: no bloody way is this prat notable enough IMO. only a few of the references above are linked to him and most just mention him in passing. Id agree that he fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:CITE)

Comment: You seem to not understand what notability is. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." Do you see any criteria in that statement for "extremely influential"...? For "a search on Google"...? No, and for good reason. There are no secondary sources, and no good article fulfilling  could possibly be written about this man. The dude is non-notable, and that's a fact
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: As per the above discussion, notability is not reflexive to a community. Though the community may be notable, not all noteworthy people in a notable community are notable. The real question is, are there reliable, independent secondary sources such that  could be fulfilled? If not, then the article cannot be reasonably written
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: per , ,  and by who needs this crap anyway (scuse my French
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SPAM||WP:CITE)

Comment: The multiple sources (like those cited by Amit) are sufficiant in satsfying our notability guildlines.  Controversial topic, but  is not a reason to delete an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)