Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Boba_Phat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not cover a topic notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. Information is better suited for a personal site, or other outlet, such as social networking sites. Biohazard388 (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC) — Biohazard388 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep there is significant coverage from reliable sources, meets general notability guidelines.--kelapstick (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep (with possibly merge down the road). Sourcing mostly sucks -- YouTube and whatnot -- but seems like a lot of third-party folks have covered the thing. Whether that qualifies as significant coverage, I dunno. --EEMIV (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It was determined six months ago in the prior AfD that this should be kept, and nominator provides no explanation for the new AfD.  "Not notable enough" as a nominating justification is a slippery slope; I agree that the the topic is not extremely notable, but sourcing and press coverage does exist, and this was previously determined to be sufficient to keep.--Milowent (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator's first edit was to nominate this for deletion.--Milowent (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I've checked through all of the source. Most of them were either YouTube videos, photo galleries, a FaceBook page, or other social media websites; all of which do not qualify for WP:NOTE nor are they reliable sources. The rest are extremely trivial mentions or coming up as 404. The only two reliable sources, the Guardian and Publisher's Weekly, doesn't even mention this cosplayer and are only used to cite attendance figures. This article is borderline self-promotion. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd say it is blatant self promotion. A passing mention in two news articles doesn't qualify him for anything on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia will host a page about him, then why not an individual charity worker that has been in a local paper several times? By accepting an article on this character, a precedent is set that says anyone with two pictures on a website can be accepted. I believe this to be against the both the rules of the site, as outlined in WP:NOTE. This tell's us that the social networking sites like Facebook, and the Youtube links are invalid for use as citation because of the "Independent of the subject" clause, listed in the first section. Also in that same section, "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention..".Biohazard388 (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources were discussed in length at last AFD, and most people said Keep. Google news search for Boba Phat shows an article at Daily Titan speaking of him and showing a picture in the article.  http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_13476056?source=rss has an article about him as well.   D r e a m Focus  14:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentHaving your picuter appear, and only your picuter, in a newspaper is extreamly trivial and does not ammount to significant coverage as requrired by WP:NOTE. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Picuter"??? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Talking of a notable event, and choosing a picture of this person to represent it, counts to notability. And the other link I provided talks about him in detail.  There is plenty of coverage of this guy out there.   D r e a m Focus  08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Two tiny paragraphs with less than two hundred words is hardly talking about him "in detail". As to choosing a picture of a person to represent a notable event, there are hundreds, if not thousands of costumers whose pictures haven been chosen at one time or another for use in various blurb articles like that one. Are you suggesting that every single one of these individuals warrants an article here on Wikipedia?Rogueslade (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't just some random picture, of a random fan, but someone who has created themselves a notable character which keeps getting coverage of many events.  D r e a m Focus  02:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous cosplayers that have achieved equal notoriety within their costuming field, including some that have been featured in magazines related to that particular show/movie/cartoon/comic. This does not mean that the characters they created warrant biographical articles. I fail to see how a couple of youtube videos, a single fan-made documentary, a handful of pictures and a couple brief lines in one publication validate this article. Until this article was brought to my attention, I'd never heard a word about 'Boba Phat'. Leaving this would be akin to creating a biography of 'Bubba Fett' a costumer that wears a Boba Fett helmet and overalls with a mini-keg strapped to his back. In fact, there are several 'Bubba Fetts' running around, all taking the Boba Fett archtype and applying stereotypical redneck traits. You'll find similar videos and articles of dozens of costume variants that follow this general trend. Do they also warrant wiki-biographies? This Boba Phat is no different from any other fan-made costume character. Rogueslade (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep! We already determined in the previous AfD that the subject clearly met the notability criteria, and once that happens, notability sticks, even if the subject is no longer "popular". Also suspect SPA user, whose sole contributions are the nomination this article for AfD. Bad faith. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTAGAIN is not a valid reasons to either speedy keep or keep this article. Just because an article survived AfD once doesn't mean it cannot be challanged again in the future. And by my judgement, the last AfD didn't acutally evaluate the reliability of sources or their depth of coverage. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not liking the results doesn't mean someone should do it all again hoping to have things turn out differently. And I believe those who said keep last time thought the depth of coverage was sufficient, there quite a lot of discussion about those sources.   D r e a m Focus  08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The original AfD was inappropriately closed anyways and perhaps wrongly given the arguments in the discussion. It was a contested discussion closed by a non-admin. Such contested discussions can only be closed by an administrator. The closer was later banned from Wikipedia for disruption at bot RfA and at AfD. Given those circumstances, it is quite appropriate to reopen a discussion and reevaluate the article. If an administrator had closed that discussion, it would at best resulted in no consensus and more likely in deletion. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources, fails GNG. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately, I don't see any non-trivial RS coverage here. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable, trivial creation. Half of the sources are non-existent, and as mentioned, most of the rest are either Youtube videos, facebook pages or other non-official publications. Article is better suited to a personal site. Rogueslade (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Note: You're correct, under this user name, I haven't made other contributions, however, I have done so anonymously in the past. I felt it only polite to create a new account as I intended to support the decision for this article to be deleted. I can assure you that, now that I've created an account, any further edits or contributions of mine will certainly be attached to this account In the future, I'd appreciate that if you're going to make such an obvious attempt to discredit my views, please at least have the decency to sign your comment. Rogueslade (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Electroshoxcure (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there is significant coverage from reliable sources, meets general notability guidelines Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep : Coverage by reliable sources meets WP:GNG. Notability was discussed at length and established in previous AfD; in the meantime the notability guidelines did not change significantly to justify a new nomination. -- Cycl o pia talk  08:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It wasn't notable the first time, and it isn't now. The sourcing is shallow and consists of mentions, and nothing meaningful appears in those references because there is nothing meaningful here. Drmies (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. See my comment at the previous AfD. Bongo  matic  10:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Can anyone tell me how the sources are reliable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That said, given this, this, and especially when compared against this I have to concur with Cobaltbluetony that something seems rather strange here. Ordinarily in a case such as this I'd offer up a trout for the nom, but something already smells rather fishy here... --Tothwolf (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should be a blurb in star wars conventions, not really worthy of a standalone article. He is consistently mentioned in connection with the conventions, take away the convention and this man is no more. As with before I believe this person doesn't meet the notability guidelines with a sprinkling of one event notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sourcing for this cosplay character is just abysmal. Most are YouTube, blogs, or trivial/passing mentions. I don't see any significant coverage of the actual character himself in reputable publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as previously demonstrated both in the first AfD and above, the subject of the article clearly meets the minimum standards for a standalone article per the notability guideline. Once the minimum standards are met, self-published sources are specifically allowed for and often essential for verification of minor details. Outright deletion is still a last resort option when there are other things which can be done with verifiable content.
 * I agree. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins. –MuZemike 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to point out that the results of the investigation into this alleged Sockpuppet case were that myself and the other users involved are, in fact, not linked in any way. Please take this into account when considering this AfD, as it is a legitimate call from the community that this article may not meet the guidelines set forth by the community.Biohazard388 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Last time I voted weak keep. This is one of those marginal articles that I usually vote keep on, but what changed my mind is that the creator did nothing on WP all this time except contribute this one article and I even asked her to(I believe the creator had an article on themselves as well, was it "the great vagina" or "clit" or something?). Anyhow, that constitutes SPA, and not accused- proven.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a really baffling comment. What on earth has this to do with the suitability of the article, in one sense or the other? -- Cycl o pia talk  19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if my comment was "colorful" or offensive, if so I apologize. I did think I was somewhat clear, though; this is in my opinion a borderline article, it can go either way. In such cases I tend to say keep, but the fact the creator of this article contributed only this article and nothing else makes me go the other way. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if my comment above baffled you, the one about great vagina, i found what i meant, the creator of this article also created Miss Clit. Thus, i was wrong, there were two contributions, imaginary Boba Phat and above mentioned.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't made myself clear. My point is: who cares who created the article? Since when we judge the merits of the creator instead of those of the article? It's complete nonsense. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Stating that there is a substantial amount of "reliable" sources is a stretch, the subject of the article is Facebook fanpage-worthy at best. This kind of article has no place on an informative website.Mandoman89 (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — Mandoman89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment This is a note to all editors that assuming good faith is not just a courtesy, but a requirement. Attacking other editors simply for being single purpose accounts is uncalled for and a violation of Wikipedia's behavior policies, (WP:BITE) —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I duly accept admonishment for suggesting anything untoward of Mandoman89, whose first edit ever on wikipedia appears above.--Milowent (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't an attack. Its standard to mention when someone has their first and only edit in an AFD.  They have a template for that after all.  They may not be a sockpuppet, but such things do happen often enough for a template to exist, since how often does a new editor decided their first ever activity will be an an AFD?   D r e a m Focus  03:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Non-trivial" implies more than a photo with Stan Lee and a shout-out in the trade press. 100 × trivial does not equal non-trivial. Keeps thus far have failed to identify why the coverage is sufficient; I would hope that the closing admin makes a decision based on the evidence presented rather than how strongly people are presenting it. The speedy keep argument is spurious in that the nomination does not appear to be made in bad faith; it is hardly worth pointing out that editors in good standing would be best nominating articles for deletion anonymously should they not wish to be permanently harrassed in the current WP climate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Metromix interviewed him at a convention.  Does everyone consider that notable coverage?  He gets photographed, written up, and even on television interviews time and again.   D r e a m Focus  02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed mentions him stating he is quite notable, various famous people mentioning him, he in one documentary already, and was interviews for another documentary coming out in the future done by Lucas Films!   D r e a m Focus  02:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is just barely notable though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep – This is a clear bad-faith nomination by User:Biohazard388. If this isn't sock puppetry by those involved in the SPI, then this is clear meatpuppetry orchestrated by someone on the outside who is recruiting someone to propose deletion on Star Wars-related material on the behalf of Dalejenkins. –MuZemike 07:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only bad-faith here is the continuous attempt by you and your cohorts to slander and defame the nominator, myself and the other person accused of sock-puppetry. By the comments given by the gentleman that investigated us, I none of us are even in the same state, perhaps not even the same part of the country. And until the false accusation laid against me, I'd never even heard of this Dalejenkins. If anyone is exhibiting meatpuppetry here, it is you and your friends with your constant attempts to discredit myself and the others you're targeting. Instead of continuing to do so, try providing actual concrete evidence as to why the article should be kept. Rogueslade (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I also find the attention directed towards new users a bit misdirected. It seems like a lot of noise to distract from the issue at hand, which is not why new users choose to jump in head first, but why this article may not meet the guidelines set forth by the community. I find it brash and a bit disconcerting that a community with guidelines such as "assume good faith" and "help the newbies" would allow users such as MuZemike to continually bash the character and eligibility of not only myself, but several other users while more important issues are at hand. I feel picked on, and a tad insulted, to be honest. I expected more from a community based on Good Faith. Biohazard388 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, MuZemike really can't be helped, though I myself humbly surrender to our worthy new boba phat AfD commenting crew.  I prostrate myself and beg your forgiveness, Biohazard388.  Yes, much more important issues are at hand, namely whether we keep an article on Boba Phat which has received some press coverage commensurate with its delicious ridiculousness.  Perhaps you'd like to comment on whether Wikipedia is harmed by including Mr. Phat?--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sure. While it isn't harmful to the content hosted on the site, I believe it harms the essence not only the site, but the community. Allow me to explain: As I stated in an earlier comment further up the page, by allowing a cosplay character to have a page, even if one or two passing mentions of this character are in legitmate outlet's for news, the community is saying that anyone with one or two newspaper clippings with their name on it can have their own wikipedia page. This means other cosplays, charity workers, community leaders such as pastors or PTA mom's can have an article on themselves now, too, provided they have been mentioned in a newspaper or online news outlet two times (which is very easy when you are active in your community). I believe we are setting an unusually dangerous precedent with this if we allow this article to remain hosted on the Wikipedia site. If the community at hand cannot find grounds to delete the article outright, I'd suggest an alternative action, such as a stub or merger, or small subsection in another article may suffice. Having an entire article on this one character with very little noteworthery mentionings (most of which are in passing, or in reference to a photo) opens the door for anyone to create their own page on themselves should they have been mentioned in newspaper twice, and have a few youtube videos about themselves. I hope that all made sense. In essence... "Why should this guy get an article based on two news sites passing mentions. If we do say that, as a community, then we open the door for anyone and everyone with mediocre news coverage to create a page for themselves." Biohazard388 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable, if you ask for my humble opinion. If I would dress as a Borg drone and take a picture with me and Patrick Stewart or so, do I get my own article too? I could call myself HiveFive. Seriously, all the references in the article are not reliable. Hive001   contact  10:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The alleged "coverage" is trivial and superficial. Being photographed with famous people doesn't make you famous. Nor do youtube videos or mentions on websites that take user submitted material with no real editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Niteshift puts it very well. Beyond that, a mass of weak sourcing doesn't add up to strong sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, while the article may seem non-notable, there are valid references to warrant a weak keep. Toxic  Waste  Grounds  16:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Suggest we close this afd. This is a no consensus issue as it was the last time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree. The "Delete" tags are at nearly 60% of the total vote. Also, listed on The Page concerning "No Consensus", Wikipedia guidelines say that "a few vocal dissenters do not create non-consensus." This article was closed early and for no good reason on it's first time up for AfD. I say we wait it out, and let it go by the Admin's to decide the outcome. Closing it early won't help anything.Biohazard388 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Biohazard, I must compliment you on your command of wikipedia policy. However, I tend to agree with Hell in a Bucket on this one.--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If it counts for anything, I agree with Biohazard on this one. To that end, we clearly have no consensus on whether or not to close this as a "no consensus" ;) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think closing it is a good idea - I honestly don't think the character is notable enough for an article, as I mentioned in my reasoning above. Let the process run its course, as long-time established editors have taken both sides in this. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also, as Farix pointed out earlier up in this discussion, the previous AfD was closed by a non-admin after a contested discussion. This discussion has also had it's up and downs, and appears to be divided still, therefor an Admin is required to close this AfD and determine whether or not Deletion is necessary, or if a merger with another article should suffice.Biohazard388 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: No reason to close this early, as many members of the "Delete" camp have very strong arguments for the deletion of this so-called "notable" article. Try as I might, I just can't seem to find a reason to keep the article. It has no real purpose other than to entertain the cosplayer with the fact that he has a useless article about himself on WP. Mandoman89 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice: I have started and ANI thread about the continuing assumptions of bad faith, bitting, personal attacks and other nonsense that is occurring in this discussion. The thread is Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not my cup o' Joe, but seems to have been noticed by enough sources to make it kinda notable. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - FFS, are you kidding? Short mentions in articles covering comic conventions and a bunch of youtube links?  I think people need to put their inner Star Ward nerd into a deep dark hole and reevaluate just what threshold WP:N actually has, to see why it most certainly isn't met for some over-the-hill cosplayer. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in the few reliable sources available. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally non-notable, no significant coverage, what's to keep? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I admit, I like it, but the article doesn't merit inclusion here. I see no real coverage in reliable sources, just brief mentions in fluff pieces. --  At am a  頭 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I refer myself to Bongo's analysis of source in the first AfD. There are no strong sources that actually talk about the subject. There are sources about the conventions, and those sources seem to mention him only as one of the cosplayers in the conventions. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Amusing?  Yes.  Interesting?  Quite possibly.  Significant coverage in reliable sources?  No.  Notable?  Not in the slightest. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Simple as that.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom and others.. Not notable.  Traxs 7   (Talk) 06:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks independent evidence of significance. A fan-wiki subject, not a Wikipedia subject. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP, per my arguments in the prior, failed attempt and MuZemike's remarks above.Someone here is clearly gaming the AFD process. And prolly not for the first time either. Maybe it is about time to have some minimal editorial requirements for contributing to content before being allowed to nominate content for deletion.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read this ANI thread and redact your comment. Whether or not you reconsider your !vote is up to you of course. --  At am a  頭 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This substantially changes nothing as far as I'm concerned. The nom's edit pattern is still very suspicious and motives highly questionable. It only further proves that ANI is a sideshow and the real decisions are made in the Wiki Admins' IRC channel. That and what Theodore Roosevelt once said of William McKinley might apply here as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, your suspicions about the nom have absolutely no substantial effect on the 25 + other delete votes in this AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete you know an article is in big trouble when the first "reference" is to YouTube. Anyway, delete for lack of notability and lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Youtube videos and bloggy websites don't cut it. Reyk  YO!  22:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per my arguments at the last AfD. Meets WP:GNG. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Hardly notable, most links are from youtube, some from facebook, and a few valid websites. I have a Fett style costume and I was on the news with it, should I get my own page? Definitely not. Appearing at a few large events does not make someone notable. The lack of respectable and reliable references, and the dismal amount of actual information suggests to me that this article should be deleted. --Thaxos (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see a bunch of unreliable sources (YouTube, social networking sites, etc.), and only a handful of passing mentions in sources that might be considered reliable. That indicates a failure to meet notability requirements, since there are no reliable, third-party sources that are actually and primarily about the article subject. *** Crotalus *** 17:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete a guy with a costume that goes to sci-fi conventions isn't notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The Press-Telegram seems an adequate source to establish notability. Notice that our article on the Press-Telegram has zero sources of any sort.   Repeat nomination of articles which have already been considered is inefficient when we have so many other poor articles to work upon.  This seems to be disruption for this reason and per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a non consensus the last time and clearly a lot of editors feel it should be deleted, so this accusation of disruption smells like bad faith. This is the second nom, not the 8th like some articles have done. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't share the view that one source makes notability. It can be argued that coverage by only one reliable source is really WP:ILIKEIT once removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was extensively discussed last time and the result was Keep. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My error, the NAC was closed as a keep.....which still doesn't change what is happening here. Since you like quoting policies, how about this quote: "While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.". Sort of shoots the whole "it was discussed before" thing in the foot, doesn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There needs to be some reasonable basis for supposing that consensus has changed before repeating the process in an identical way. This nomination brought nothing new to the table and so seems to be a case of WP:NOTAGAIN in violation of our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, considering the number of delete !votes I see here, it would appear that the results are leaning towards delete much stronger than last time, so maybe consensus did change. Again I refer to the policy I quoted. Each editor needs to re-examine the proposal. It is proposed that this article be deleted. I'm sure, in keeping with the policy, you gave it serious contemplation on the discussion at hand and didn't just rely on your old !vote. So would others. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in the previous discussion and so have come to this fresh. It is nonetheless tiresome to engage with an issue which has already been gone over in detail before.  It is a common complaint about Wikipedia that matters continue to fester in this interminable and inefficient way.  We should be more severe in curtailing such repetition as it drives off editors and so is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that an AfD decided as "Keep" was a permanent, incontrovertible result. Even if this AfD is "disruptive" (an assessment I find very disagreeable), that has no substantive impact on the thinking behind any of the opinions expressed herein. The only thing I find disruptive is these continued attempts to slander both the nominator and the nomination itself, I presume in the hope that it somehow reduces the weight behind votes for deletion. Why not stick to substantive argument, as you do in the first half of your vote? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I quoted the relevant policy which indicates that editors may be blocked for vexatious repeat nominations of this sort. If the nominator is a genuine new user then they may find this guidance helpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I quoted the policy that says your "It was extensively discussed last time" "guidance" isn't the only thing that applies here. Since your concern is guidance and education, I'm sure you support making editors aware of applicable policies aside from the just one that supports your keep POV. I also suspect you'd have a difficult time finding reasonable admins that would block for a second nomination. You keep making it sound like this has been nominated an unreasonable number of times. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your concern for the well-being of the AfD initiator is touching, but how about a bit less argumentum ad hominem and more addressing of the actual topic? Tarc (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing ad hominem about my response. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Confusion reigns. :) For avoidance of doubt, I shall restate that it is my definite opinion that the article should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. We have at least one solid source and this is adequate to tell us that deletion is not required here.  Further editing and improvement is preferred in accordance with that policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think you know very much about journalistic prose if you think this article is primarily about this "Boba Phat" person. The article simply uses the example of one attendee to give the reader a better understanding about the comic convention itself, which is the primary topic of the article.  That is the issue that has been raised by many here, that the sources cover various conventions, and not Mr. Phat himself, who is only used as a colorful aside. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He's the lead in the story while it's people like Stan Lee who get brief mentions. It's enough to show that deletion is not sensible or appropriate.  One might merge to an article like  Comic-con, Boba Fett or Cosplay but there's so much choice of topic that it seems simpler to keep the details here so that these other articles can refer to and share them in an efficient way. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he isn't. No amount of wishing black to be white and up to be down on your part can alter reality. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I went through the citations looking for coverage from secondary sources. I did see the one from Long Beach Press (fn 18) that includes him, but footnote 2 is a dead link. Most appear to be uploaded videos or his picture at conventions. The Daily Titan (fn 19) is a free school newspaper for Cal State Fullerton. With so little media coverage, I'm not sure readers will be looking him up. Eudemis (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had the same feeling when I started reading this article as expressed by Starblind above (Youtube being its first source). Nervetheless, I looked at the other sources, and I concur with the analysis of Eudemis right above: it's hard to call them WP:RS. Of course, in the realm of celebrities, it's rather hard to point out exactly what "reliable" means, but the sources in this article aren't even reputable, unless you count a couple of pictures among dozens a Con (say those from LA Weekly ) being being described as "featured" in this article. LOL for NPOV. Can we have an article about Tusken Raver now? There's a picture of shim in this source: . Pcap ping  13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no significant mainstream independent third party coverage Theserialcomma (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Perfect example of fan cruft and abundance of sources not always being justification for notability. This is not encyclopedia worthy. Sorry. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Biohazard388. Teenage Martyr (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that Mr. Phat has a chance in hell of being kept, but I'd note that Teenage Martyr is blocked.--Milowent (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.