Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 3 April 2009

Difference between the Alan Cabal artile

Here is the difference between the Alan Cabal article when it was first proposed for deletion in January and the article today:

I will build a graph to support the claim that the article has been completly rewritten with new sources.

I will also argue that many of the sources meet or exceed notability guidelines.Ikip (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And when will you be doing this exactly? Just show us the sources, that would be a good start.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As DGG states on his user page: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience". No amount of references will convince some editors, who consume so much time deleting other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you have five good references to try to show and therefore convinve someone? Or is this more smoke and mirrors with dozens of cites, few of which even mention the fellow? A 12-2 afd closed two weeks ago. No sources of merit found in the interim and the article is recreated and its defenders can't provide new sources that stand up to scrutiny? In the long run you'll convince few people that way.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate analysis of cabal sources in version as of April 2, 2009 10am eastern

Source analysis:

• 1. Self published.
• 2. Published by close personal friend (the jersey shore car trip).
• 3. Passant mentions (two sentences in an article).
• 4. Passant mention that a guy named "garbled uplink" was unpleasant at an early BBS.
• 5. Self published.
• 6. One sentence mention in a 300 page book (with apparently incorrect information).
• 7. Mention of his name in a capsule theater review from the late 60s.
• 8. Mention of his name in a capsule theater review from the late 60s.
• 9. Not a citation at all (apparently he had a minor appearance on the patty duke show? NOt established by this).
• 10. Book doesn't mention cabal at all.
• 11. Passant mention.
• 12. Passant mention (the words "Garbled Uplink;" that's it).
• 13. Same exact citation as number 4.
• 14. Passant mention of "garbled uplink" as a member of a BBS system in a book review of the book used for citations 4 and 13.
• 15. Doesn't mention cabal at all.
• 16. Doesn't mention cabal at all.
• 17. First person narrative about band cabal was in written by band mate.
• 18. Dead link. But it looks to be selfpublished and under a pseudonym no less.
• 19. Non citation citation (a note that he was on the masthead of a free weekly as a contributing writer.)
• 20. No mention of cabal whatsoever in this.
• 21. A blog that someone claiming to be Cabal wrote about himself in the comments section? No. Not ever usable. For anything.
• 22. Capsule summary of a Cabal article as part of holocaust denial section of the wyman report for 2004.
• 23. Mention of same cabal article on a holocaust denial website.
• 24. Mention of same cabal article in a letter written by the holocaust denier that cabal defended.
• 25. Self published (the holocaust denial related article tied to the mentions 22, 23, 24).
• 26. Mention of a mean letter to the editor sent by Alan Cabal to the jewish press at the jewish press.
• 27. Mean letter sent by Alan Cabal to the New York Press, published in the letters section.
• 28. Self published (an index pointing to an article that Cabal wrote for the NY Press, can't find the article itslef. Not that that would be relevant).
• 29. Pesonal web page of a professor at Wayne State university mentioning a line from a cabal article as a favorite quotation, embedded in other favorite quotations, with no discussin or commentary or otherwise mention of cabal. Did i mention this is a personal web page?
• 30. Self-published.
• 31. Picture of the back cover of an obscure book Called "Weird New Jersey". On the back cover Cabal has provided a publishers blurb praising it. Friends with the authors? Almost certainly.
• 32. A cabal quote used in a book published by an apparent vanity press. That's it.
• 33. Two line mention of Cabal in a 300 page book. Nothing about cabal at all.
• 34. A book on Buckminster Fuller mentions briefly a Cabal article in which cabal said he liked buckminster fuller. That's it.
• 35. Apparently another brief quote of his mentioned in an "AMerican SPectator" article.
• 36. Another cabal quote used in another minor book.
• 37. Cabal and ex wife mentinioned in acknowledgments of book written by a friend.

Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO Basic criteria

Quote "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability.", "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Thank you for proving notability. Schmidt, 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be obutse: What part of "may be used" do you not understand? "May be used" means something very different from "is sufficient." As it is, almost nothing is established about him. No reliable source has ever seen fit to write an article about him. He has won no awards. He has left no mark on the profession (i'm not even sure what to call his old profession; not journalism, surely. "Childish polemics," maybe). He has only been taken notice of for one article -- his defense of the holocaust deniar -- by the holocaust denier himself and his critics. None of these sources discuss him at all, and number of these sources don't even mention him. I'm getting tired of your faux courtesy.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)