Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mulinix (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 delete and redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Not sufficiently notable per consensus, but still a valid search term. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Mulinix[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable just for being a faithless elector in 2016. Clear example of RECENTISM and fails GNG and POLITICIAN. Quis separabit? 02:55, 23 January 2017 (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/2017 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as creator, I know there's no point in advocating for keeping it because it will just be deleted anyway, so if it is not kept as likely I support redirecting to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 so content is not lost. MB298 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mulinex is already listed in that article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close AfD churning, previous AfD closed 17 days ago. Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I stated at the 1st AfD, as nothing at all actually convincing apart from the simple information and the events themselves, which absolutely inherit him no automatic notability whatsoever, regardless of the news involved, as it still applies and we've never had a policy barring renominations and we never will, because that's now how articles work; any article is open to renomination especially when there was still questionability and there certainly still is in this case. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a citizen of Hawaii who stepped forward to participate in the democratic process. However, brief role as an Elector does not suffice to confer notability. Previous mentions are few and very minor, a caption in a news photo caption of him holding a protest sign at a 2015 demonstration is typical. Museum development directors are rarely notable. There really is nothing else.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The latest absurd instalment in the series of non-notable articles with a minor link to the United States presidential election of 2016. This man is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 in case someone were to search on the name. Per above, non-notable. MB 02:39, 30 January 2017 (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.