Deletion of Alan Cabal (2nd nomination)

Comment: Doesn't meet  and probable  issues. Maybe speedy as recreation of deleted material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:COI)

Comment: He wrote for the New York Press, CounterPunch, and Gallery; but nothing has been written about ''him'' in return.  I feel those magazines just aren't scrutible enough to assert his notability as being a writer for them.  On the other side of the story, I feel a comment is in order about the |point of the nomination, since the most vocal defender of this article has recently been blocked
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: 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  states, Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to... This was never done
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: while this article has considerably improved from earlier versions, it nonetheless does not, in its present form, pass . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS)