Misplaced Pages

I must express my gratitude for the amusement that both the page and the arguments against it have provided me. "Stealthepiscopalian" is an idiot: I didn't write the article, and I have never used "Manhattan Samurai" as an alias. Anyone with the research skills of a competent high school student could verify that. The funniest material here is the assertion that "Cabal" is an improbable surname and the truly retarded assertion that I "won" an appearance on The Patty Duke Show in a radio contest. That material from the article is also verifiable by anyone with minimal research skills. This sort of puffery and buffoonery is why Misplaced Pages is generally considered an unreliable source by professional journalists. Thanks for the laughs! ---Alan Cabal (email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.29.146 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet you come here (assuming this is the non-notable Mr. Cabal) to cast insults and make a backhanded argument for keeping "your" article. Amusing indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion lends itself to insults on an otherwise boring Saturday afternoon. It reminds me of high school. I don't make "backhanded arguments", I crap on the carpet, blow my nose in the curtains, and head for the nearest biker bar. ---AC

You know a good biker bar with wi-fi in manhattan? That's the sort of info that might encourage me to withdraw my nomination.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The Hells Angels Manhattan digs are here: 40.72516300, -73.98829600, there has to be a bar nearby... Proxy User (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There is no cabal. Oh, wait. Lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. COI and BLP issues suggest an agenda at work. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My name is Cuban, like my demented adoptive father. It has no relation to the English word, "cabal." Clive Barker might have been onto something, but as a murderous Communist born-again, you wouldn't know about that. I do like your vicious assaults on automobile drivers, though. ---AC

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I find very unlikely that the article was not written by its subject. Take for instance the last paragraph: "Bemoaning the loss of its iconoclastic edge, Cabal resigned from the New York Press on March 3, 2005, the day after the newspaper ran a controversial satire by Matt Taibbi titled "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope"". This bit of information is sourced from a comment made by Alan Cabal himself on an article in Fast Company. The article itself didn't mention Alan at all; Fast Company allows blog type replies to articles. That's where Alan posted his view, which is used as source in the wiki article. You'd have to be a berserk fan of Alan Cabal to know where to look for this or, far more likely, Alan himself. It all reads like an embittered out of work journalist is trying to pen his own epitaph. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Xasodfuih must be suffering from roid rage. I'm about as "embittered" as a raccoon in a Whole Foods dumpster, and I am currently insanely overemployed building stage sets out here in California. I haven't written anything in years. Say something once, why say it again? I am feeling somewhat vindicated by 2008. I didn't write any of it. ---AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.9.137 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• • And your point is? Whether or not he wrote it himself, we have no policy against writing about yourself, despite the number of people who seem to think we do. Comment on content, not the contributor; is the subject of the article notable, is the information in the article verifiable, and is the article reliably sourced? – iridescent 22:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I knew there had to shady stuff going on here, but this is impressive. So, I can post something on blog somewhere as a reply to some article that isn't about me, and then use my blog post as a source for a fact in an article about myself? By that standard anyone can become notable by spamming some blogs with posts and quoting them on Misplaced Pages. Who knows why he's not working for NYP, maybe they've fired his ass for trolling. Iridescent, since you're and admin, shouldn't you be more worried that MS seems to be evading his block? Or that he's attacking other editors right on this page? Or are you a fan of his? Xasodfuih (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of him and have no opinion on this article. Do you see any "keep" from me here? Go read WP:COI and WP:AGF before you take this conversation any further. – iridescent 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

""speedy keep -- Manhattan Samurai cohould have an upportunity to defend this article and his good name for othese unsourced accausiatons of evading blcoks and sockpuppeting. has he been notified of this thread or of these allegations bein directed towards his personalization? And this article has already survived 1 article-for-deletion and 1 deletion review; these repetated nominatins are bodrdering on WP:POINTy. Notability, reliable sources, and verifiability exist in the necessar y quantifiabities and in fact exist in overabundance. this is growing absolute. Smith Jones (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mean this article was deleted at AfD and the deletion was upheld at DRV, ManhattanSamurai's shenanigans notwithstanding. Themfromspace (talk)

• delete I looked carefully at the sources, and most are articles written by AC or don't mention him at all. Mr. Cabal should publish his autobiography elsewhere. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

-

• The prevvious deleton from which iw spoke was true, but the deletion revie wa sclsoed at our behest. Manhattan Samurai and i collaboed with an admin to have the aritcle draft placed on my userpage;ffrom there, we were able to conduct an extensive revison of the text therein and redefined the articles so that they fight within the Wikipedian parameters. as a result of this work, the article currently meats all applicalbe standards from which you derive your theyfacto objections and therefore it should be kept. Please re-revise the sources as yuo clearly did not look clearly enough that athem to derive the correct ascertation as to their compliance with the rules. Smith Jones (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• comment would al oyu mind citing your sources that say that alan cabal was cnnected with this article in anyway shape or form? there is noe vidence to even suggest that he has ever been on wikipedia, much less been a part o the work that i sused to create this article. please cite your sources/evidence or please sotp with the WP:ABF attempts as they might be conidserd as a distracting element in this process. Smith Jones (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Er… There is extremely good evidence that AC is active on Misplaced Pages! – iridescent 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • someone CLAIMED int o be alan cabla. i can claim to be you right noaw and go troll some other pages but that doesnt mean that its evidence saying that you are trolling pages. alan cabal as far as ic an tell is some sort of jouranlist or reporter and hardly has time to mess around vandalizing wikepedia. he has his reputaiton to consideraat the very least if he was caught being rude on the talk page of aprominent encyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Unless you have hard evidence, never assume people are who they say they are. Themfromspace (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete Bylines aren't bios. The sources we are meant to build this biography from are pretty thin, and we tend to delete biographies on journalists whose most famous google hits are their works, not themselves. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• delete - per nom Theserialcomma (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• delete - non-notable. sources are blogs or trivial mentions. this was afd'd before and the current version is the authorrs attempts grasping at straws to fill the reference section. Chrislk02 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep 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: Misplaced Pages: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 WP:PRESERVE states, Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to... This was never done. travb (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as being properly sourced and well written, despite any WP:UGH !votes. And allegations about authorship matter not as the article now belongs to Wiki. Going down the list of current references, and with respects to the nom, New York Press, Details (magazine), New York Times, Daily News, Fast Company (magazine), Time (magazine), Institute for Historical Review, Arts and Letters Daily, Adelaide Institute, Rheingold.com, wymaninstitute.org, and the multiple books being referenced are not blogs. Repeated claims that these sources are blogs seems indefensible. I ask the closing admin to take careful note of those. The subject easily passes WP:AUTHOR despite his subject matter being decried. Further, and to address some of the other WP:WAX arguments for deletion: Even were it to be confirmed (and it has not been... only alleged), authoring one's own article is NOT against policy NOR against guideline... just discouraged because of concerns for POV and COI... which are now a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Bylines aren't bios is an interesting way to opine delete... as the article is sourced to bios and the "bylines" WP:Verify his being an author... and the "g-hits" to his works further underscore his passing WP:AUTHOR. Why is this even here?? Send it to cleanup. Schmidt, 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, he wrote in many small publications, but he was never written about. That's what determines notability, how much is written about the subject. Not how much the subject writes. Themfromspace (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It would seem that "small publications" is a subjective term. I did not know that Misplaced Pages considred New York Press and CounterPunch to be non-notable publications. Thank you for your opinion. Schmidt, 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No matter what my opinion is, if there is no collective body of work, independant of the subject, that details him then he fails Misplaced Pages's general notability requirement and the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Themfromspace (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails Bio. BigDunc 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delightfuly succinct. Might you expand on what way you feel he does not pass WP:AUTHOR? Thank you. Schmidt, 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask -- no reliable sources establish that he is widely cited as creating a new concept, or has a body of work deemed notable by the profession (or any secondary sources), or in any other way has done anything notable except write some articles that have not achieved wide fame, acclaim, or infamy. Millions of people have written articles. That's why he fails on those criteria.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was actually wishing to know his reason for such a short response... now he can simply copy-paste yours. Thank you. Schmidt, 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep So obviously I want this article to stay. I wrote a large part of it with Smith Jones. Alan Cabal is one of New York's great iconoclasts. He was heavily involved in the Occult scene from the 70s all the way into the 90s. Some of the books were used to source the "occult renaissance" that took place during those years, of which he was an integral part. See Christopher Knowles' book Our Gods Wear Spandex for direct linkage of Alan Cabal to the "occult renaissance". He performed on stage in one of Ron Athey's shows (an extreme performance artist) during the 90s. He was heavily involved in OTO's administration and then in the 90s was a part of a fairly significant BBS called Echo. Time magazine includes him in a list of Internet bohemians and online celebrities in the very first sentence of an article about a Hacker Homecoming. Then there was the band White Courtesy Telephone that he and some friends formed and their story is described in a Details magazine article called "Rock 'n Roll Fantasy" written by Rob Tannenbaum. His defense of a controversial historian in 2004 also got him mention in the press. Cabal is an iconoclast. That's all for now. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: These two blog posts at GetReligion.org provided more Alan Cabal-specific sourcing that may be of interest. The contributors are professionals as you can see from their masthead:

• Jeremy Lott (2005-03-07). "Satanists for standards". GetReligion.org.
• Jeremy Lott (2005-03-10). "Full court New York Press". GetReligion.org.

*comment Both of the above "sources" are to a blog, that cites a comment Cabal allegedly made in the blog/comment thread of another article. I hope you recognize why these can not be considered reliable sources for anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• So far there's no evidence that this is properly sourceable. Our own editors' opinions that he's great don't count for anything. Delete unless it can be properly sourced. Hint for those who are encyclopedia-impaired: articles that he wrote are not the same as sources about him. Friday (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The subject appears to be notable and the article's sourcing looks to be in order. It is difficult to comprehend the vain attempts to obscure the issue of notability with the careless, vague and unsubstantiated COI charges (which, on its own terms, is not a valid reason for deletion). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete it is certainly verifiable that the subject has written articles for various publications. However, that alone isn't enough to meet either the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for creative proffessionals. Both require some form of independent coverage or commetary (which, as with all Misplaced Pages content, should be from reliable sources) of either the individual or their work; the article does not make it apparaent that this exists for the subject and that has not changed since the article was deleted following Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alan Cabal six months ago. As Id on;t see the pice developinf from beyond a bibliography/CV into an encyclopaedia article that meets Misplaced Pages's quality standards. Guest9999 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep--The article has good sources and just the fact that he has been published by national magazines should be enough to meet WP:N. Notability is not temporary.--J.Mundo (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, He may be notable - but the reference section certainly doesn't show it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)