Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cabal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete on the balance of it all. The articles provided as references prove that he exists, has written some articles, and is no longer employed by the NY Press. There is nothing other than tangential mentions, and as has been pointed out, they do not confer notability. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal[edit]

Alan Cabal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. Was deleted as a prod but then hostilely contested a while after deletion. Notability not established per WP:CREATIVE. There are thousands of journalists, not all of them are notable - He's hardly a Sy Hersh. There is no indication that this one is particularly more notable than any other. Ave Caesar (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such childishness. It is good knowledge and Alan Cabal is someone I would like to know more about. Can we know more about him? This is an Article for Expansion.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack aside, please note that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for keeping an article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand— He seems "pretty fucking notable." And I'm not even Alan Cabal! In all seriousness now, he seems notable, and with some more citations and refs, the article will be a pretty decent stub. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the brutal deletionist policy that has aflicted certain articles such as Alan Cabal or Murder of Joseph Didier must be brought to a stop NOW. Smith Jones (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability may be established via independent and reliable sources. Just being a widely published freelance writer isn't enough (see the back-and-forth about Cyrus Farivar), until we have some standards saying how journalists are notable for their writing alone, we should have some sources that are actually about them. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung - notability is not established in the current single reference (indeed there are no valid citations or references as third party) and the "bibliography" (hardly well headed!) does nothing to assist. --VS talk 04:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed opinion to keep - references found by SilkTork (I have commented also on article talk page) provide enough notability for article to be kept. Good work SilkTork!--VS talk 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only we could delete deletionists. If references aren't used, add them, but don't use their absence as proof against notability. His position on freedom of speech is the interesting thing to note here. You do realize without this article on Alan Cabal there isn't any real information about him on the internet. This article is a real asset. Someone needs to find some interesting sources about him so that this article can be shored up. Under no circumstances should we be removing this article. I love these idiotic arguments.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would like to rat out Ave Caesar and point out that he removed this line from the gonzo journalism article on June 1, 2008: "Other writers who have worked in "gonzo" mode include Jordan Kobos, Tom Luffman, and Alan Cabal." Annihilate Cabal's existence! Basically, Alan Cabal is well-known as a gonzo journalist and there is a systematic effort to remove his name from Wikipedia, even though his name has been non-systematically added to this site. Systematic effort by one Ave Caesar. Look Ave, maybe you have a gripe against Alan Cabal for something he has done, someone he has supported outside of Wikipedia, and yes, it is a brilliant idea to remove his entry from Wikipedia then, because you'll diminish his notability over time (notability does come somewhat with having a Wikipedia entry), but just stop. You've been found out and the game is up.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Manhattan Samurai You have your argument about face and wrong side up and your diatribe is further flawed because rather than spend the time "walking the talk" and putting in the time to save the article which you have so much regard for, by finding these elusive references - you feel the need to resort to personal attacks here (and it appears at many places where you do not agree with the alternative message). There really is no need for that sort of behaviour - please just try and understand - third party references are the staple of this wikipedia and their presence is proof of notability.--VS talk 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the author about such issues (his most recent email address is [email protected]) and you should too as an interesting experiment. I tried to find some references and it wasn't easy, but there is a lot of "talk" about him, and so the references are out there. Maybe they are in the archives of several newspapers. The internet is a turd for research, so this will take time. Hopefully solutions are forthcoming.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. Alan Cabal is one of those interesting cases in that he is quoted by blogs and forums, and appears to have a modest but well established internet presence. I have argued previously that we should allow articles on topics or people in which there is considerable coverage in non-formal sources such as blogs and forums, but there is no consensus for that. Under current guidelines this article fails WP:CREATIVE. If people wish to know who Alan Cabal is (and I can see that people would, given the amount of times his articles are mentioned) they'll just have to Google and pick up the remains of this article on a Wikipedia mirror. Seems totally daft to me, but that is the current consensus. SilkTork *YES! 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What am I doing! Consensus develops from discussions on AfD - the guidelines reflect what happens here. If enough people show that they want articles on people like Alan Cabal and are prepared to accept multiple internet mentions, then that will get written into the guidelines. Keep for gawds sake. Let's be sensible about it, and not get bogged down into perpetuating some guidelines that are not working! SilkTork *YES! 07:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are affected by consensus, yes. However, they are constrained by policy. For instance, blogs are not reliable sources and cannot be used to establish notability. The notability standards, which have resisted far greater challenges than this in the past, consistently maintain that someone is not notable simply because they are prolific but because something they produce had a profound impact. Quality over quantity. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - continue the brutal deletionist policy of removing anything without reliable sources. This one is referenced to what looks like a Wikipedia mirror?! Huon (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by mirror??? The word mirror does not appear even once on the article or tis atlk page. your reasoning appear spurious. Smith Jones (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - by "mirror" I mean that this site, the article's main reference, seems to take its content from Wikipedia itself, probably from an older version of the same article. See the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line. Huon (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • isnt it possible that that other article devleoped its own article on Alan Cabal independently of wikipedia? Are we all so arrogant that we cannot bleive that other wikis can come up with their own researchw ithout stealing wholesale from our hard work? Smith Jones (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't assume anything, I read the source. The "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line is pretty explicit, isn't it? Actually that source seems not to be a true mirror (or a Wiki), but some sort of search engine - under "Results summary" it gives several headings, with "Wikipedia" the only one where anything was found. Huon (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much of a claim to notability. Zero reliable sources cited in article. Search for any significant coverage of him didn't find any.--Michig (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the author after I sent him an email saying "We don't know too much about you, and frankly we're not up to doing the research to find the maybe half a dozen newspaper articles (are there any books?) that discuss you, so we're hoping you can maybe point us in the right direction.":

Whoa! Who the Hell am I? I hope this isn't getting too vicious.

I've got several dozen articles in the "archives" of www.nypress.com, starting HERE:

[1]

Christ, that's a long URL. I hope it works. If it doesn't, just go to www.nypress.com. Under "archive" you'll see a search box. Enter "Alan Cabal" (in quotes), go for "oldest first."

I'm still doing book reviews for High Times, but they don't post those on the web. Calling a spade a spade has its cost vis-a-vis subjects like Israel and Ernst Zundel, and I've paid it, happily. I never set out to be any kind of "journalist", it happened by accident. Given a voice, I will state the truth as I see it, and I did.

Anyway, I'm not a journalist, I'm a polemicist. Fucking Cassandra is what I am, heh. I prefer setting up and tearing down live spectacles, like rock shows and circuses. That line of work staves off my well-deserved heart attack.

Thanks to you, and all best wishes to my allies and friends. May my enemies' poo come to life and kiss them on the lips.

Best,

Alan Cabal

The thing to do is find the article Mr. Cabal wrote about Ernst Zundel and use that as a reference. If possible, even find some "talk" resulting from the article.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Only articles about Alan Cabal are relevant with regard to notability. It seems he couldn't even suggest where to look for any.--Michig (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to above Huon's comment. FIne, even if I granted that your assumptions were correct, even if I set aside that source, there are still TWO other sources including but not liited to [2] this one here which indicate notaibility beyond a reasonable conception of design. Smith Jones (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources demonstrating notability cited in the article. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right. Look at these srouces:

These sources are strong enough to support an entire article, and these are just the ones I found on a google search of Alan cabal. I am sure that there are innumerable more searches on the Internet as well as in books, newspapers, etc. Smith Jones (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not strong enough. Some of them are written by Cabal, others only briefly mention him. You're not seriously suggesting Wikipedia be used as a source for a Wikipedia article? Please make an effort to read and understand the Wikipedia guidelines before commenting further.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all of the wp policies prefectly. I admit that I overreached on the wikipedia source but I have seen articles written by a subject as a source for learning about the articles as per WP:BLP -- that's Wikipedia: Biography of Living Persons, a policy that I hope you are familiar with before you go after my sources. By the way, thse "brief" mentions contain quite a bit of information. Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles written by the subject of an article are valid as evidence of what they've written. For notability purposes, however, significant coverage from independent reliable sources are required. Notability is the issue here.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are also valid as evidence that they are NOTABLE, which is thepoint of this AFD correct me from if I am wrong. By the fact alone that this writer, in his fame, has been published in multiple multinational media sources, all of whom are apparently notable New York Press, CounterPunch enough for wikipedia proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Alan Cabal is prominent, notable and chiclet. Smith Jones (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see this satisfying WP:N. If his writing had prompted other people to devote significant coverage to Alan Cabal, that would be a different matter. --Michig (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michig. Notability is established by mentions in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of the sources given by Smith Jones satisfy WP:RS. The one coming closest is the Institute for Historical Review one, but that institute is anything but scholarly, and its journal is not peer-reviewed. Huon (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to be published in three high-circulation magazines establishes notability as far as I am concerned. The less formal connaisance on the net while not consensus certainly in my view lends weigh to the keep argument. Mallanox 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just put in three references to the Zündel article that Cabal wrote. What we have here is a writer who has achieved some modest attention ("notability" or "notoriety" I'm not sure which) through his article on Zündel. The verifiability of that attention is mainly the blogs themselves - however we now also have the report on David Wyman's Wyman Institute, a report on the Institute for Historical Review's website of the Jeff Rense show on Cabal's article, and a letter from Ernst Zündel himself quoted on the Adelaide Institute's website. I'm not comfortable with the politics of some of those sources, nor - to be honest - their general reliability - but they certainly serve the purpose here of verifying that Cabal has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. SilkTork *YES! 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see why he should be considered more notable than the average journalist. The article doesn't provide one reliable source that gives him any coverage, thus falling way short of the wp:bio notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, not confrontationally but informatively, that most of Cabal's notability lies in the fact that he writes gonzo. He creates a shitstorm here and there and writes often provocatively. So in the interest of someone notably gonzo Cabal stands out. Basically if you're interested in gonzo, and Wikipedia is, then you'd be interested in Cabal.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like both gonzo and Cabal. However, I don't let what I like get in the way of correctly applying Wikipedia's notability policies. Gonzo is notable, so there's a Wikipedia article about gonzo. But just because gonzo is notable that doesn't mean that every gonzo journalist is notable as well. Baseball is notable, but that doesn't mean that every baseball journalist is notable. For a journalist to be notable, for Wikipedia purposes, the journalist must have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. This notability standard has not been met by Mr. Cabal. I have nothing against mentioning Mr. Cabal briefly at gonzo journalism.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the keep argument here is nothing more than a textbook case of WP:ILIKEIT. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhiel, the even more spurious delete argument is based entirely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT topped with a healthy fervor of deletionism, WP:SURMOUNTABLEPROBLEM and WP:JNN. Nice try :D. Smith Jones (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, it's based on the fact that there are absolutely no reliable sources establishing notability. All journalists are prolific that doesn't equate to notability. Notability would require this individual to have made a profound contribution to his field or to society that is recognized by his peers. This guy doesn't even classify as a journalist so much as he does an op-ed writer. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you know that your argument is not spuruious, but you refuse to admit that our arguments make sense. Thats really WP:NPOV of you. Have you read the WP policy WP:JNN???? Smith Jones (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV refers to article content. JNN pertains to unsubstantiated claims that something isn't notable. WP:VERIFY clearly argues that the burden of evidence rests with the person who is attempting to claim notability. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC
So sorry :D, but wikilawyering wont strengthen the deletionist case. Essentially what we are required to do is establish that this article is notable, which is what we are doing. Already User:Manhattan Samurai is in the process of procuding a majorly controversial article written by Alan Cabal re: the Ernst Zundel persecutions and we have seen several instances of Cabal's prominent contributions to notable journalistic media vis a vis New York Press, CounterPunch, etc. The deltionists have simply insisted that these sources do not meet WP:N without actualy giving solid policy-related reasons right now. Smith Jones (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zundel article forthcoming I contacted CounterPunch and one of their editors-in-chief, Alexander Cockburn, has agreed that the controversial article, "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel", should be made available on their web site and he will do so within a week or two. So this article is coming around. It is starting to look pretty sharp.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles written by Mr. Cabal don't add anything. To establish notability, we need articles written by others about Mr. Cabal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't add anything to your ridiculous world view in which you "like both gonzo and Cabal" but are so warped by Wiki policy pages that you can't come around to keeping this useful article. It does add a link to an interesting article about freedom of speech, I believe. I'm looking forward to reading it. And who is this idiot below talking about needing independent sources? There's several in the article. What do you think Wikipedia is? It is a place to offer up information about people like Alan Cabal! There I've told you. Now fall in line.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks to Wikipedia's anonymity, your formidable username does scare me into falling in line :-). You should know, every once in a while, usually during a nasty afd debate (like this one), I think that maybe it's just better that Wikipedia totally scrap its notability policy, and everything that anyone finds interesting should be allowed into Wikipedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not going to come after you with my Katana if that's what you're thinking. But let's be honest, there are people that are going to come to Wikipedia and want to look up Alan Cabal. He's a different kind of writer with a notable history and just because we don't have the perfect article today doesn't mean that day isn't coming.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you agree that everything that anybody finds interesting (even it's true and sourced) does not deserve automatic entry into Wikipedia? If you do agree, and admit that Wikipedia should have some sort of notability pollicy, you shouldn't be that bothered by the fact that some people won't find information on Alan Cabal on Wikipedia. There's an overarching policy concern here that trumps the missing Alan Cabal information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs independent sources. AniMate 02:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough already with the Personal Attacks Manhattan Samurai. I have placed a warning on your page - talk civilly from now on please!--VS talk 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is interesting here, is that people know Cabal (he has a significant readership having written regularly for significant publications, he is mentioned on the internet, radio shows, and by notable individuals and organisations) and yet there is quibbling about his "notability" because the guidelines we have written ourselves have raised the bar too high. If you are an athlete you need only have been paid to perform. Most of the individuals on this list: Tampa Bay Rays all-time roster have far fewer verifying sources, yet they are on our project because we have decided that "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" are notable, while creative writers need to be "regarded as an important figure or [] widely cited by their peers or successors." - a much more difficult and somewhat subjective criteria. A baseball player plays one game, gets an article. A writer writes professionally for several years (and has the substantial proof of that), creates something of a stir in which an article he has written gets mentioned in several places (with his name included in the mentions, because he has a reputation), and we are quibbling because he doesn't quite meet out notability criteria. Well, we should be looking at our notability criteria. We certainly want to keep out non-notable bloggers, but a professional writer who creates some interest is likely to prompt a reader to turn to a reliable source (Wikipedia) for more information, and we should be providing that information. Alan Cabal's name is known - he is mentioned in John Strausbaugh's book Rock 'Til You Drop. It's not that Alan Cabal is not known, it's that our guidelines are written to exclude the ordinary blogger, and have unfortunately caught him in their net as well. I'm not particularly interested in Alan Cabal, but I am interested in this AfD setting a consensus to adjust our criteria to include known professional writers whose name is mentioned in multiple sources. SilkTork *YES! 07:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's unfair that every player on the Tampa Bay Rays all-time roster is considered notable, when plainly, Alan Cabal is more notable then some of the listed players. But baseball players are lucky in a way, because in baseball a fine line can be drawn - Major Leages is notable, non-Majors is unnotable. This fine line minimizes all sorts of notability discussions. Indeed, rarely will you find an afd debate on a baseball player. Unfortunatly, there's no fine line that can be drawn for writers, thus requiring a case-by-case analysis of whethere the wp:bio requirements are met. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while I appreciate SilkTork's attempts at finding sources, I still feel there's too little. We can't even verify the basics. We don't have a date of birth or anything on his background (education, for example). We have a 2005 New York Press article about the impending death of the Pope, but no source linking that article to Cabal or the end of his employment. We don't have any secondary source for his High Times book reviews. A single line on a private website is blown up into an entire paragraph. An Alan Cabal is mentioned in a book on rock music; there's not even enough context to make sure it's the same Alan Cabal. His CounterPunch article has been mentioned by several more or less reliable sources. But to me he looks at most like a case of WP:BLP1E - maybe a passing mention in the Ernst Zündel article would be more appropriate? Though honestly I doubt that article would get better by mentioning Cabal. Huon (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also CounterPunch itself. Wikipedia:Verifiability does say: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." When talking about someone who has made an impact on the internet, then internet sources are appropriate. The policy allows the article, what we are quibbling over is the notability guidelines - and these guidelines vary according to the circumstances. My point here is not that we shouldn't be having the less than notable baseball players, but that in drawing up the guidelines to excludes bloggers we shouldn't also be excluding professional writers who have been writing regularly in a notable publication. SilkTork *YES! 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silktork's baseball player argument. the_ed17 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seconding the kepe vote. Only one Keep or Delete comment per editor please Smith Jones--VS talk 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Proving that there are articles out there, written by a journalist, doesn't make the journalist notable, it simply proves s/he exists. According to the notability guidelines, the subject of this article simply fails. For creative professionals, the guidelines require that: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. There's just no evidence of this. Even the article doesn't claim or explain the subject's notability. It just reads like anyone's bio or CV. I can see this is an emotional subject for a lot of people out there, but I've got no axe to grind. The bottom line is, evidence of existence isn't evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin46 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. Austin46 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FTLOG no-one is saying h e is nodable that just beause he exists. The argument we ave rendreerd states merely that Cabal has contributed famous and notable contribtuions which have sparked controversy (specifically the Zundel holocaust review. Smith Jones (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal&oldid=1166567249"