Deletion of Boba Phat (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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  actually has, to see why it most certainly ''isn't'' met for some over-the-hill cosplayer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: there is significant coverage from reliable sources, meets |general notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

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, (
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NPA||WP:BITE)

Comment: Having your picuter appear, and only your picuter, in a newspaper is extreamly trivial and does not ammount to significant coverage as requrired by 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS)

Comment: there is significant coverage from reliable sources, meets |general notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:NOCONSENSUS)

Comment: Coverage by reliable sources meets . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 . 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 http://www.laweekly.com/slideshow/comic-con-day-3-iron-man-2-panel-cosplay-madness-lost-and-more-28077406/3) 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: http://www.dailytitan.com/2009/10/07/longbeachcomiccon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The ''Press-Telegram (Long Beach)|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 , "''It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)