Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Kopotun

Denis Kopotun

Denis Kopotun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Though the two sources from Forbes and Vancouver Sun provide a good start, however, the bulk of the remaining references provided are all primary sources and some are even self-published. The abundance of information on The Pals provides a challenge since it is made up of information from sources such as Distractify, as well as information which seems to have no bearing on the main topic. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 11:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 11:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. Bridget (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - two Forbes and one Vancouver Sun, all major, editorially-controlled, reliable independent sources with significant coverage? that's quite clearly enough to pass GNG. Jishara (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete and Salt – I agree in which, the Denis Kopotun article, consists of a low amount of citations, which could prove notability and reliability, however, the article should also be salted, as I noticed in which, there were previous AfD nominations for Denis Daily, and so therefore, drafting the page would be objectiveless, as this would only just cause the page, to gain continous attempts of moving into mainspace, and therefore, larger amounts of AfD nominations as a result. MrDevolver (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep – I heavily disagree, since almost all information now has a reference, Denis Kopotun is a notable individual and deserves a wikipedia page as he's a director for a Canadian cartoon, Denis and Me, is featured on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, and more. Cheromaniii (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually Cheromaniii, I disagree with you, evidence to claim so is in which, you confirmed: "Since almost all information now has a reference". This is 1 perspective, which proves for why, other users would also disagree with you, because, here in strict online encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, this is not only to do, with the amount of citations available, this is also to do, for if the citations even meet, WP:GNG alongside with also, being reliable for inclusion. My 2nd perspective, for why other users, would also disagree with you, is because, you confirmed: "As he's a director for a Canadian cartoon, Denis and Me, and is featured on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, and more". This proves my 2nd perspective, for why other users, would also disagree with you, because, the fact in which, you primarily included Denis and Me and Forbes 30 Under 30 in this, proves how you are focusing, on Denis Daily's popularity, which proves for why, other users would also disagree with you, because, here in Wikipedia, popularity by self, does not deem notability. MrDevolver (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think your reply actually involves GNG the way you claim it to. You're right that notability isn't just about citations. It's actually about whether sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. But your reply says that standard and then never applies it to the sources actually in question.

Forbes 30 Under 30 isn't an unreliable source, it's independent, and an editor hand-picks people to show recognition from a major publication, which is kind of third-party sources GNG looks for.

Calling it "popularity by self" makes him appear differently from what the sources are. Denis Kopotun didn't write his own Forbes profile, Forbes selected him! The same applies to Vancouver Sun, which is a reliable, independent newspaper, and yet, this source isn't addressed in your reply, despite being flagged by the deletion nominator as one of the two strongest sources in the article.

Saying "this proves why other users would also disagree with you" several times isn't a valid demonstration of showing how the sources against policy. If the claim is that these sources fail GNG, the way to demonstrate that is to show they're not independent, not reliable, or that the coverage is extremely minimal.

Being a director of a produced, distributed work and receiving independent recognition for it is closer to the kind of coverage GNG is about.

If there are specific sources here that are weak, self-published, or non-independent, it'd help the discussion to name them directly rather than just defining Denis's notability and popularity claims in general terms.

Right now the strongest two sources (Forbes and Vancouver Sun) haven't actually been shown to fail inclusion criteria or GNG. Cheromaniii (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't attempting to confirm in which, Forbes 30 Under 30 isn't an unreliable source, I just assumed in which, since you confirmed about Denis Daily, being included in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, that this was referring specifically, towards Denis Daily's popularity, which only popularity by self, cannot just deem notability. Secondly, when I confirmed: "Popularity by self", I wasn't directly referring towards, the Denis Kopotun article itself, I was referring towards, your mention in your AfD debate about, Denis Daily being featured in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, because, you specifically mentioned Denis and Me and Forbes 30 Under 30, within your AfD debate, which caused me to assume in which, you were referring towards, Denis Daily's popularity, within your AfD debate. Thirdly, I didn't include Vancouver Sun, within my reply, for why I disagree with you, because, once again, I was attempting to refer specifically, towards your AfD debate, not directly towards the, Denis Kopotun article itself. Fourthly, I am as of currently aware, in which, being the director of a series, does indeed meet WP:GNG, and as a result, I apologise for such. Fifth/Finally, I shall continue to disagree with you, and I also agree with AdobongPogi, because, AdobongPogi specifically confirmed in which, although Forbes and Vancouver Sun, could be reliable/notable enough, majority of the other citations, are either primary and/or self–published, which I may/may not agree with, and Wikipedia also clearly confirms in which, based on the length of the page, there should be a minimum of atleast 3 citations, which are purely notable/reliable, and are also non–primary, in order for the page to weakly remain, in the mainspace, and according towards the Denis Kopotun article, since AdobongPogi confirmed in which, Forbes and Vancouver Sun could be reliable/notable enough, this therefore causes the amount of citations, which could be purely reliable/notable and non–primary, to be 2/3 citations, defining in which, there continues to be 1 remaining citation, which could be purely reliable/notable and non–primary, to be added into the Denis Kopotun article, in order for the page, to weakly remain, within the mainspace. MrDevolver (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but most of your points consist of almost no logic.

First, there is no rule on Wikipedia that "based on the length of the page, there should be a minimum of atleast 3 citations" to remain in the mainspace. Notability is completely independent of article length, and it is not a numbers game where an article fails if it has two high quality sources instead of three.

According to WP:GNG, what matters is whether a subject (Denis Kopotun) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the Forbes profile and the Vancouver Sun article both provide significant, independent coverage, they establish the baseline for GNG on their own (which they do).

Second, counting the total number of references/sources this way deceits how an AfD works. Even if the majority of the other citations currently in the article are primary (which they're not), the standard procedure is to clean up or remove weak sources, not to delete the entire page (per WP:PRESERVE). An article is kept based on the best sources available that prove the subject's underlying notability, not by averaging out the quality of every single link in the reference section.

Since we both agree that being the director and creator of a distributed and televised animated series (Denis and Me) is a major encyclopedic milestone, and we have independent coverage from major outlets like Forbes and the Vancouver Sun documenting him personally, Kopotun clearly passes GNG.

Just because there are weaker citations is not a valid enough reason to delete the article. I still stand by keeping the article.

Cheromaniii (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have an issue finding significant coverage in reliable abd independent sources. The Forbes source backs up the resume part of the article. A HEY would be to provide more sourcing that advances notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: passes WP:GNG. Two articles in Forbes spaced 2 years apart on different topics related to Denis and an article from the Vancouver Sun in between both of those articles is more than enough for me --TitCrisse (t•c) 12:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC).

  I agree that the the two sources' articles help establish notability, but my concern is not only whether the subject passes WP:GNG. Though these two sources do offer some substantial independent coverage, the bulk of the content of the article is still sourced either from primary sources, including his own YouTube videos and official websites, or from sources which deal only with certain parts of his projects. WP:NOTINHERITED These two sources however, do not necessarily back up the scope of the current article, especially the detailed information provided regarding his early life, YouTube career, businesses, and his show 'Denis and Me'. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 09:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why not just remove any excessive information rather than deleting the article? Cheromaniii (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Removing excessive information does not resolve the underlying notability issue. Much of the article's substance is drawn from a small number of sources and from coverage of Denis and Me rather than Denis Kopotun himself, and some of the information is unsourced. If you remove the unnecessary, overly detailed, or routine information from the article, there is not much independently source information left about Denis himself to show that he meets WP:GNG. In that case, I agree with @Fences and windows that a merge instead to Denis and Me may be more appropriate than maintaining a standalone biography. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 10:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete or selective merge to Denis and Me. Vancouver Sun and Forbes are fine, but we want more outlets for WP:GNG to be satisfied. Repeat coverage by Forbes doesn't count twice for notability. I found nothing else reliable with SIGCOV. Fences&Windows 16:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources, and, as I've written before, "Forbes is a crust of a shell of a carcass of a formerly reliable source." Bearian (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2026 (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.