Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitas Varnas

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vitas Varnas

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO notability; zero significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. No major roles as specified by WP:NACTOR. Sources consist of credits listings for minor roles, and minor factoids from VGFacts, a video games website which the subject is affiliated with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Like the nominator says, the sources in the article are essentially just credits listings and trivia websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nomination explains, the subject of this article fails to meet notability criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR. Peacock (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article that fails even WP:GNG. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, I too suspect this is a vanity article. Not notable, anyway. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails NACTOR and just looks like a promotional piece. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bring the snow. Clear vanity from the trivia from a website the subject contributes to. Varnas posts trivia to his facebook page, Dazz posts it to VGFacts (an unusable source for BLPs), Danozzz posts it here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early to consider notable. Barca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.