Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Tsatsomoiros
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elias Tsatsomoiros
Non-notable crackpot theorist. Author of one book published by a notorious extreme nationalist fringe organisation, promoting pseudo-theories about history of Greek language. No discernible impact outside those circles. See Talk:Elias Tsatsomoiros for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the article contains" "Tsatsomoiros' work has been ignored by mainstream scholars, as it is completely inconsistent with everything that is known about languages and alphabets in general". In other words there are no sources to show the notability of this work and therefore of its author. Gwernol 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Gwernol--Aldux 16:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable crackpot. --Macrakis 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. But a suggestion to the author: rewrite this (make it much shorter, remove the references to the specific words), search [1] categories for an article in which a reference to this proponent might fit. He seems to be an example of pseudolinguistics (no category yet) or pseudoarchaeology (existing category).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Interlingua (talk • contribs).
- Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete almost asserts it's own lack of notability. Kevin 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Does it really matter if Elias Tsatsomoiros is non-notable? The fact that he wrote something that provides an unorthodox interpretation of how the Greek alphabet works should nonetheless have its place in Wikipedia. If "mainstream" academia deems Tsatsomoiros' work as "non-notable", then state it in the article (or put such a statement in parentheses). Besides, you cannot say that you want to "Free the Knowledge of the World" and at the same time repress something that people should know about. Let readers decide if Tsatsomoiros is "fringy" or not. Deucalionite 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why is this "something that people should know about"? Should Wikipedia be a forum for every crackpot idea that practically nobody takes seriously, and hardly anyone even notices? Fan1967 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Look Fan1967, this article only provides an unorthodox interpretation of the Greek alphabet. Yes, I know Tsatsomoiros is not much to look at in terms of credentials since not many people have noticed him. However, human perceptions should not get in the way when it comes to promoting knowledge. Granted there are many non-notable people who have extremely non-realistic ideas that deserve to be dismissed. However, there are also many non-notable people with interestingly rational, yet unorthodox, ideas that deserve to be noted even if mainstream academia might be hesitant to accept them. It is all about knowing how to filter things. Generalizing everyone into one big "pseudoscience" group could very well marginalize intelligent people who have something interesting to say, but just don't have a big enough "voice" to be heard by everyone else. Please do not assume that I am supporting this article just because Elias Tsatsomoiros is Greek. I only support him because I respect people who provide unorthodox ideas that could have some application to our current knowledge about things. Tsatsomoiros' work is not necessarily based on "DaVinci Code" material if you get my drift. Believe me, I have met my fair share of outrageously asinine Greek ideas. Based on the comparison tests I have conducted a while back, the number of really really crazy Greek ideas are not that numerous. Interesting stuff. Anyway, I still maintain my position to keep this article. I hope others understand that people (including voters here) should, by now, be able to distinguish between "insanely unorthodox" individuals and "rationally unorthodox" individuals. If people can't do that, then they can just ask me and I will tell them the story straight (for only a nominal fee of $9.95 a month; just kidding). Deucalionite 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to glance at this page and then decide if this guy really deserves a page. What's covered in the Wikipedia article seems among his saner theories. Fan1967 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Interesting article Fan1967. Though I have confronted slightly more insane Greek ideas. Anyway, I appreciate you finding this website for me to read (never knew it existed, plus I learned the Greek word for "fraud"). Here is an idea to help solve any potential problems with the Tsatsomoiros article. I suggest that Tsatsomoiros' ideas pertaining to the functions of the Greek alphabet be preserved and any other theories deemed "insane" either be completely dismissed or relegated to a separate section in the article. The website you provided truly presents some outlandishly "unorthodox" theories. I will not lie to you, these theories are truly interesting (who knows, maybe they are true to some extent). However, for the time being, such theories are very difficult to validate scientifically. Specifically, it is difficult to prove if a northern Greek territory was the first land to have appeared from an ocean-covered planet Earth 140 million years ago (whatever happened to Pangaea?). Without evidence, these theories are just theories. So, if you want to place these outlandishly theoretical theories in a separate section of the article, then go ahead (or if you want me to do that then tell me). If not, then ignore them. Your call. Deucalionite 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The problem isn't that he's a crackpot; we certainly have tons of articles on crackpots. The problem is that he isn't a notable crackpot, and if we don't set standards for crackpots, then we'll end up with an article for everyone who's published a book (or even a blog) detailing how George Bush is controlled by a microchip implanted in his head by aliens from the planet Blugztrakh. So we only document the crackpots who have actually achieved coverage and notice of their beliefs, like the guy who says that Bush is actually a shape-shifting reptile. Tsatsomoiros pretty much fails on that score. Fan1967 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I understand where you are coming from Fan1967. Yet, I still think that notability is just not enough to really judge an article. Let me elaborate. Let's say there is an article that has some interestingly contributive information, but it is not noteworthy. What do you do? Do you delete it? No. Do you dismiss it entirely? No. So what course of action do you take? Analyze the content. Is the content interesting enough and applicable enough to academia that it deserve a place in Wikipedia irrespective of its lack of notability? If yes, then keep the content. If no, then delete. It is just not kosher to keep a notable article that does not contribute much to people's knowledge of things and delete an article that is ignored yet contains something constructive. See where I am getting at? Yes, there is a plethora of crackpots who are non-notable and Tsatsomoiros fits the bill. Yet, it would be a shame to ignore whatever insights he may have about the Greek alphabet. Say what you will of Tsatsomoiros, but his statements pertaining to each Greek letter possessing a "code" that would later help to form a logical Greek word helped me answer a lot of questions about the Greek alphabet's functionality and even its development. For instance, when Tsatsomoiros explained the dynamics of the Greek letter "Y" and what it represents, all of the words I commonly use in Greek just began to make sense (since I would always ask myself, "why do I say this Greek word specifically to explain a certain object or person?"). That is why I want Tsatsomoiros to stay. Deucalionite 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's the problem. You think that his theories actually may have value (I disagree), and therefore should be kept despite the fact that the entire academic world considers them not even worth acknowledging. We can't keep articles based on the personal value judgement of a Wikipedia editor. Notability is the only fair determining factor. Is it a widely accepted theory, or a widely discussed controversial theory, or even a widely rejected theory that generates a lot of discussion? If not, then we can't justify keeping it, when we routinely get rid of other theories of similar status. Fan1967 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I did not say that all of Tsatsomoiros' theories be kept. Interesting theories, yes. However, even I know where limits should be placed when it comes to making theories. Notability is not exactly as fair as you may think, because notability is a fickle and ever-changing concept (didn't I state this already?). What could be considered "mainstream" one day could be considered "fringy" the next. So, if an article is deemed "fringy" just because a large handful of "mainstream" academics say so, then what makes the content of the article so unworthy for people to look at? Content, content, content. The concept of compromise and content-analysis is essential in order to transcend academic politics. If the president of a prestigious group of academics deems certain content as "fringy" after the previous president deemed the same content as "mainstream", then what do you do? You have to truly and honestly think about these things. Academia is not as "objective" as one may think, which makes notions of "fairness" very relative. Such concepts have to be substituted with notions of academic honesty and academic accountability. Again, look and analyze the content. See which parts are constructive and which ones are not. Though I admire your upholding of Wikipedia policy, you need to understand that policies can change and that policies are only enduring if they are both staunch and flexible in a dualistic fashion. This is an opportunity for you and Wikipedia policy to really show flexibility being that I already made a compromise in that I would only place certain theories made by Tstasomoiros. I know how sensitive Wikipedia is to the "fringiness" of the other theories that Tsatsomoiros made. I still stand with banners high supporting this article. Deucalionite 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've looked at and analyzed the content. I'm 100% in agreement with the academic consensus on it. I could be more blunt in my assessment, but I think you get the drift. I certainly see absolutely nothing here to make me want to ignore, or rewrite, Wikipedia policies in order to keep it. Fan1967 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've looked at and analyzed the content too. I'm 100% in agreement with social reality (academia is not based only on notable things). I too could be more honest in my assessment, but I think you understand where I am coming from. I certainly see something here that does make me want to uphold this article (even if that something is deemed "fringy" by academic consensus). The statements I just made were not meant to offend you. Their purpose was to prove that anyone can state what you have just stated right now. Anyone. So much for Wikipedia being an "independent source". Did you know that academic consensus considered for a time that the planet was flat and that rocks never fell from the sky? Funny, don't you think? Wikipedia should not become the next Brittanica with Western European anal-retentiveness as its top characteristic ("Free the Knowledge of the World" indeed). People need to be exposed to individuals like Elias Tsatsomoiros in order for them to understand who is who irrespective of notability. Period. The ball is in your court my friend and I have yet to be convinced that this article with some, more or less, "sane" theories be removed. You said they were "saner" in comparison to the other theories in the website you provided and I agreed with you. Compromise anyone? Or is such a concept unusually novel to Wikipedia policy? Deucalionite 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an "independent source". It is a Tertiary source. And if you think you are insulting Wikipedia by saying it wants to be like Britannica, you're mistaken. That is, in fact, basically the goal. Fan1967 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've looked at and analyzed the content too. I'm 100% in agreement with social reality (academia is not based only on notable things). I too could be more honest in my assessment, but I think you understand where I am coming from. I certainly see something here that does make me want to uphold this article (even if that something is deemed "fringy" by academic consensus). The statements I just made were not meant to offend you. Their purpose was to prove that anyone can state what you have just stated right now. Anyone. So much for Wikipedia being an "independent source". Did you know that academic consensus considered for a time that the planet was flat and that rocks never fell from the sky? Funny, don't you think? Wikipedia should not become the next Brittanica with Western European anal-retentiveness as its top characteristic ("Free the Knowledge of the World" indeed). People need to be exposed to individuals like Elias Tsatsomoiros in order for them to understand who is who irrespective of notability. Period. The ball is in your court my friend and I have yet to be convinced that this article with some, more or less, "sane" theories be removed. You said they were "saner" in comparison to the other theories in the website you provided and I agreed with you. Compromise anyone? Or is such a concept unusually novel to Wikipedia policy? Deucalionite 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've looked at and analyzed the content. I'm 100% in agreement with the academic consensus on it. I could be more blunt in my assessment, but I think you get the drift. I certainly see absolutely nothing here to make me want to ignore, or rewrite, Wikipedia policies in order to keep it. Fan1967 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I did not say that all of Tsatsomoiros' theories be kept. Interesting theories, yes. However, even I know where limits should be placed when it comes to making theories. Notability is not exactly as fair as you may think, because notability is a fickle and ever-changing concept (didn't I state this already?). What could be considered "mainstream" one day could be considered "fringy" the next. So, if an article is deemed "fringy" just because a large handful of "mainstream" academics say so, then what makes the content of the article so unworthy for people to look at? Content, content, content. The concept of compromise and content-analysis is essential in order to transcend academic politics. If the president of a prestigious group of academics deems certain content as "fringy" after the previous president deemed the same content as "mainstream", then what do you do? You have to truly and honestly think about these things. Academia is not as "objective" as one may think, which makes notions of "fairness" very relative. Such concepts have to be substituted with notions of academic honesty and academic accountability. Again, look and analyze the content. See which parts are constructive and which ones are not. Though I admire your upholding of Wikipedia policy, you need to understand that policies can change and that policies are only enduring if they are both staunch and flexible in a dualistic fashion. This is an opportunity for you and Wikipedia policy to really show flexibility being that I already made a compromise in that I would only place certain theories made by Tstasomoiros. I know how sensitive Wikipedia is to the "fringiness" of the other theories that Tsatsomoiros made. I still stand with banners high supporting this article. Deucalionite 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's the problem. You think that his theories actually may have value (I disagree), and therefore should be kept despite the fact that the entire academic world considers them not even worth acknowledging. We can't keep articles based on the personal value judgement of a Wikipedia editor. Notability is the only fair determining factor. Is it a widely accepted theory, or a widely discussed controversial theory, or even a widely rejected theory that generates a lot of discussion? If not, then we can't justify keeping it, when we routinely get rid of other theories of similar status. Fan1967 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I understand where you are coming from Fan1967. Yet, I still think that notability is just not enough to really judge an article. Let me elaborate. Let's say there is an article that has some interestingly contributive information, but it is not noteworthy. What do you do? Do you delete it? No. Do you dismiss it entirely? No. So what course of action do you take? Analyze the content. Is the content interesting enough and applicable enough to academia that it deserve a place in Wikipedia irrespective of its lack of notability? If yes, then keep the content. If no, then delete. It is just not kosher to keep a notable article that does not contribute much to people's knowledge of things and delete an article that is ignored yet contains something constructive. See where I am getting at? Yes, there is a plethora of crackpots who are non-notable and Tsatsomoiros fits the bill. Yet, it would be a shame to ignore whatever insights he may have about the Greek alphabet. Say what you will of Tsatsomoiros, but his statements pertaining to each Greek letter possessing a "code" that would later help to form a logical Greek word helped me answer a lot of questions about the Greek alphabet's functionality and even its development. For instance, when Tsatsomoiros explained the dynamics of the Greek letter "Y" and what it represents, all of the words I commonly use in Greek just began to make sense (since I would always ask myself, "why do I say this Greek word specifically to explain a certain object or person?"). That is why I want Tsatsomoiros to stay. Deucalionite 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The problem isn't that he's a crackpot; we certainly have tons of articles on crackpots. The problem is that he isn't a notable crackpot, and if we don't set standards for crackpots, then we'll end up with an article for everyone who's published a book (or even a blog) detailing how George Bush is controlled by a microchip implanted in his head by aliens from the planet Blugztrakh. So we only document the crackpots who have actually achieved coverage and notice of their beliefs, like the guy who says that Bush is actually a shape-shifting reptile. Tsatsomoiros pretty much fails on that score. Fan1967 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Interesting article Fan1967. Though I have confronted slightly more insane Greek ideas. Anyway, I appreciate you finding this website for me to read (never knew it existed, plus I learned the Greek word for "fraud"). Here is an idea to help solve any potential problems with the Tsatsomoiros article. I suggest that Tsatsomoiros' ideas pertaining to the functions of the Greek alphabet be preserved and any other theories deemed "insane" either be completely dismissed or relegated to a separate section in the article. The website you provided truly presents some outlandishly "unorthodox" theories. I will not lie to you, these theories are truly interesting (who knows, maybe they are true to some extent). However, for the time being, such theories are very difficult to validate scientifically. Specifically, it is difficult to prove if a northern Greek territory was the first land to have appeared from an ocean-covered planet Earth 140 million years ago (whatever happened to Pangaea?). Without evidence, these theories are just theories. So, if you want to place these outlandishly theoretical theories in a separate section of the article, then go ahead (or if you want me to do that then tell me). If not, then ignore them. Your call. Deucalionite 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to glance at this page and then decide if this guy really deserves a page. What's covered in the Wikipedia article seems among his saner theories. Fan1967 01:41, 15 June 2006 (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.
