Deletion of Vermin Supreme (2nd nomination)

Comment: regarding "previous consensus misinterpreted" remarks: please read . The previous result does not matter and it is important to address your remarks to the matter at hand, now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: It's about an eccentric entertainer who has, despite the nominator's opinion, garnered several . They have no chance of election, but that's not one of ''our'' criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I see nothing wrong with using multiple sources of mixed qualities that converge on evidence of notability.  While some of them provide less-than-ideal coverage, there are others that do more than just mention the subject (e.g. http://www.economist.com/node/10498767 The Economist article and http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/04013525.asp the Boston Phoenix article).  Also, ''significant coverage does not mean the subject needs to be the main topic of the source material'' per .  With all the articles that were provided by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)