Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Kovacs


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Li Kovacs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is about a non-notable cosplayer who fails WP: ENT, as she did not have any large roles in productions, and she does not have a large fanbase. I have done WP: BEFORE and have been unable to find reliable, 3rd party sources about her. Electric Catfish2 23:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Li Kovacs is a regular cosplayer who was hired by Nintendo to stand in front of a booth to take pictures. She is the equivalent of a Disney Park Princess, not famous at all. She is popular by some people in the cosplay community but is not known by everyone. There are cosplayers on websites who have thousands more followers than she does, yet they are not famous either. She does not qualify for an entire Wikipedia article. Skippercleary2 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep. As per WP: BEFORE I have double checked Google Books and News Archives: Nintendo Power issues were found alongside other reports in from multiple nationalities regarding her fame, and even articles reporting on other media covering her fame. This is not to mention her main event roles in Video Games Live or the Nintendo run Zelda Symphony. As the real life face of one of Nintendo's top three franchises, and when also "deemed...the official cosplayer for Kid Icarus: Uprising" by Nintendo it seems rather hard to call this person insignificant. With over 10,000 followers on every social media site she has a page on  and hired on multiple occasions to be the face of one of the world's biggest game company's biggest franchises, I would argue that Li Kovacs does pass WP:ENT. Also: I have tried to include as many of the above sources as possible into the main article now to further reinforce this. Blinkstale (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Blinkstale -- I concur that Li Kovacs does pass WP:ENT.  Theo polisme  11:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Blinkstale, please note that the Nintendo book is not a reliable third party reference. A lot of links given by you and also 4 references on the article are facebook / twitter / myspace and fansite pages which are not considered reliable sources (WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERG). Did not find anything notable in google books etc. -Wikishagnik 03:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if Li Kovacs and Nintendo are separate entities under contract work, how is that not a reliable third party reference? -Blinkstale (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If she works "with Nintendo", promoting their products then there is at least a tenuous employer-employee relationship, if not co-worker relationship (if you want to insist she is not "employed" by Nintendo themselves). The fact of the matter is that she is recognised for having been employed to help promote their product, whether the hiring was done by a third party or not. Their record (the book was written by them) that she helped them can't really be considered independent, in my opinion. But by all means you can disagree - that's just my opinion (and I think Wikishagnik's, too). The bigger problem is that the search parameters don't lead to a mention of the subject at all - a search of that book via google books brings up no results (for either of the subject's names). I don't really think it's a good source, but if you're going to use it I would suggest you find some way of linking the mention of her specifically. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For any discussion about what should not and should not be a reliable source please post your arguments at WP:RSN. This is not a suitable place for this discussion. I also suggest that you go through WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERG to understand better what constitutes a reliable source. -Wikishagnik 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - of the "coverage" I could find, most relate to a single event / announcement which raises questions about WP:BLP1E. Could not find any "significant coverage" of the subject herself. There are passing mentions in stories about other things, but this cannot possible be considered coverage of the subject. The link-spammed Facebook and Twitter "sources" cannot be used to verify either information in the article or notability against WP:GNG and should be removed. The argument that she has a large number of Twitter followers is not a great argument to make, either here on in the article itself. Until the subject is covered more extensively in her own right, I can't see how she could be considered notable. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (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.