Deletion of Nick VanderLaan (2nd nomination)

Comment: Satisfies  per above, regardless of editors' opinions of the CBA at that time. If the state of the article and persistent problematic editing are a problem, that still is irrelevant to this discussion. |AFD is not cleanup and that can and should be dealt with by page protection and editor sanctions, not deletion. Article is well-written and well-sourced and written by an experienced editor, so I'm not concerned about  anyway. But if people are, deletion still isn't the answer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBASKETBALL||WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP||WP:COI)

Comment: Three reasons why I am voting weak keep this time, rather that delete as last time.  First, technically the article does just squeak by  criteria with the subject leading the CBA in a major statistical category (rebounding).  Second, the article is very well-written with good references.  While that alone does not show notability, the significant number of authoritative references in conjunction with the borderline notability pushes the article into the keep zone.  Third, the author specifically contacted me and I voted delete during the first afd. Not an argument for notability, but clearly shows that the author is not trying to sneak a non-notable subject back into WP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NHOOPS)

Comment: Per  – "Basketball figures are presumed notable if they- 3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League." Nick VanderLaan led the Continental Basketball Association in rebounding in the 2006–07 season. User:Duffbeerforme's personal opinion on the league's status at that time is irrelevant. Per the last AfD, of which only three users voted, both of the users who voted "delete" said so mostly based off the fact that 1. the referencing was poor and 2. there were not enough independent sources (you can see the previous attempt from 2015 http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Nick_VanderLaan here). I found multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources of which the subject is VanderLaan himself: https://web.archive.org/web/20161103152723/http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=5063 http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Cal-may-have-its-own-Mad-Dog-3080385.php http://articles.dailypress.com/2001-05-03/sports/0105030077_1_coach-gillen-georgia-tech-nick-vander-laan https://web.archive.org/web/20031223180549/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/basketball/ncaa/08/25/bc.bkc.vanderlaan.trans.ap/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20001207173700/http://www.socalhoops.tierranet.com/archive/prepnotes/1198/nick1117.htm. And per , "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it '''does not''' need to be the main topic of the source material" – here are two ESPN sources that detail VanderLaan with more than just a trivial mention: http://static.espn.go.com/ncb/preview2000/025.html http://www.espn.com/recruiting/s/2001/0423/1184850.html
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBASKETBALL||WP:GNG)