Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burragubba (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 keep. Given the unfortunate language originally used in the nomination, the fact that this passed unanimously with a very strong "Keep" consensus last time around, the fact that editors this time around have unanimously opined that this article be kept, and the fact that the reason for the nomination can be shown to be untrue through clearly meeting the WP:GNG, I don't think there's any value in leaving this open any longer. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Burragubba]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burragubba}}

:{{la|Burragubba}} ([{{fullurl:Burragubba|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burragubba (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non Notable Street Performer. Silk Knot (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep for all the reasons mentioned in the first AfD. The guy simply is notable; there is independent coverage in the press (which thinks him notable enough to write about him when he's beaten up by thugs). Worse, there is no rationale given by the nominator: the nominator says "non notable" when there were five sources for the article (and I added two more). Nominator's use of the term "Vagabond" suggests that there is something going on here--well, let's just say it, there seems to be a cultural bias here, let me put it that way. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep: meets Wikipedia biography's notability measures, and is therefore sufficiently notable to warrant an article. No real case made by nominator for why article should be deleted?! Bruceanthro (talk)
Keep This person is known for three different things (his music, political activity, and being attacked). All this is amply referenced by reliable sources so without a fully detailed and better rationale, there's no way I could support deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Meets The general notability guideline so easily. The majority of the internet sources provided on him are secondary, reliable and substantially mention him. Also the article makes brilliant use of the ref tag. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Seems to have ample material written about him for his various activities. Note that I have removed a word from the nomination - bloody poor form to comment this way on a living person - Peripitus (Talk) 11:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Actually, along with Artis the Spoonman and the World Famous Bushman, one of a handful of contemporary street performers to generate interest and coverage in reliable sources. Poechalkdust (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2009 (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.