Deletion of Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt

Comment: Delete''' - in my view  different sources have not changed the article because they have not addressed the reasons for which the material in the first place which were that it was not "a neutral, well-sourced, and verifiable article" - moreover- and most importantly for me - notability had not been established - the last nomination asserted he fails io against the criteria for journalists - ie ''He has not won any prizes for his Journalism, nor written any books'' - as a result he is not eligible for an article.  The use of more reliable sources may address some of the verifiability concerns but  applies and when that is matched against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy this article shouldn't be here as per the last AfD.  No new material has been introduced - only slightly better sources used
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Has received ''substantial coverage'' per the requirements of . It's  not Wikipedia's fault that the coverage isn't that positive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I'm undecided on keep or delete. However, I'll note that its present form the article is a POV-laden |coatrack and strikes me as un-encyclopedic. Majoreditor (talk
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: perhaps you could link bias to the criteria for notability under io - I can't see it - thus if bias is not a criterion for notability, then this journalist is not notable unless you have some other basis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: I am afraid this is a bad-faith I do not understand this nomination, especially as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEd_O%27Loughlin&diff=179635418&oldid=179628823 nominator himself suggested that the article be recreates with reliable sources, which this has been. It is not a  as Mr. O'Loughlin has been accused of misrepresentation over 100 times in the year 2003 alone. There is not one incident, but many incidents that fit the same pattern. I am very concerned that the nominator did not take this to the talk page, when it was an obviously different article. I am also very concerned that the nominator seemed not to read the talk page, in which these issues were discusssed in great detail. Recreating an article PROPERLY, with reliable sources is the way we improve wikipedia. The Jerusalem Post is noy a small organization, neither is the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. And both are reliable sources as well, wikipedia-wise. I '''am''' an administrator and I can confirm that the article at current is not the same, as it brings reliable sources instead of blogs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: I do not regard the cites as "significant" critical attention, they are relatively few from sources which I have to say do not strike me as without bias on this topic - we obviously differ in our interpretation of significant - there has been some unfavourable criticism but not enough to justify an article for a journalist who otherwise has apparently no claims to be regarded as an important figure in his profession and the article continues to strike me as breaching  for somebody who does notmeet io and thus it breaches LP as discussed above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:B||WP:BLP)

Comment: sigh. Once again, Yudel/Yid, that is '''not''' how wikipedia works. ''If'' O'Loughlin is not notable, we are not '''supposed''' to have an article on him. Personally, I think he is notable; others here do not. But the mere fact that he is a journalist is insufficient. Once again, please review 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: fails notability test as noted repeatedly above. Is a pet hate subject for a handful of pro-Israeli groups. Interestingly is a pet hate subject for pro-Palestine groups as well. But despite all of that, he is just a journalist working for a newspaper, like tens of thousands of others. As regards #Basic criteria, the secondary source material does not appear to meet the requirement to be "intellectually independent" as it is all published by groups with stated pro-Israeli (or pro-Palestine) agendas. He has won no major awards, he has never been newsworthy in his own right and is no more entitled to a WP article than I am
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)