Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kozicki coat of arms


 * 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 (procedural as article was already deleted). — Nizolan  (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Kozicki coat of arms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Add copy at: User:Akozick/Kozicki Coat of Arms

De-PRODDED by on the basis of this AfD discussion, though no comment was made on this particular article. The article gives no context or indication of notability, and I can't find any sources non-trivially discussing a pre-19th century Alexander Kozicki, much less his coat of arms. The Polish Biographical Index does list one Aleksander Kozicki/Kosicki, but he is presumably not the subject of this article since he lived from 1802 to 1886, after the Commonwealth had been dissolved. — Nizolan  (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I think I found this in userspace draft too. Will look. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - The deletion discussion I cited is referenced on the article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a member of the long list given in that discussion, I just meant no one actually commented on this article specifically (and the consensus seemed to be to discuss each article on its own merits, rather than an affirmative keep for each one). Just meant to register it as a clerk note-type thing and courtesy ping anyway, not a complaint about your action! — Nizolan  (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I was just trying (badly) to clarify that who closed the previous deletion discussion in applying the talk page template seemed to assert that the Keep result there applied to this article. A previous AfD result makes this article ineligible for WP:PROD, thus my WP:DEPROD. I don't have an opinion about whether this article should be kept. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added the userspace version which is at MfD - basically combining discussions here. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with storm and fire: Seriously?  Who can possibly imagine there's been any coverage (non-trivial or otherwise) beyond simple heraldic descriptions?    Ravenswing   14:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of this user's pages have now been deleted as hoaxes. Tagging this now. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2016 (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.