Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liakopoulos and the Russians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liakopoulos and the Russians

Liakopoulos and the Russians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The page exists for more than a year, but I found it by accident while checking what links to Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus. It's hard to see in what way the subject is notable to English Wikipedia. It is either original research or self-promotion. I urge other pages about this personality to be investigated. Delete. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete as WP:OR, propaganda, and crystalballism. Is that enough? Clarityfiend 07:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete When Anna was murdered Liakopoulos oppenly attributed her murder to Putin and praised him for "showing who is the boss". What a lovely man. But that's by the by. This article fails WP policy in so many ways: completely unsourced, no assertion of notability, violates WP:NOR, violates WP:SOAPBOX. We won't even have to investigate the possible WP:COI infringements. --Folantin 07:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Plumbago 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with guy's bio it seems these sorts of pronouncements are part and parcel of this guy's notability; roll 'em up. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very interesting article, ought to exist somewhere. But not in an encyclopedia. Capmango 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. No valid reasons for deletion were provided, in my opinion. The article only needs to be better sourced.Biophys 21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge (at much shorter length; this is not the place to demonstrate the existence of Pan-Orthodox sentiment). Many people have had opinions about Russia; why should we have an article on this one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this very funny joke page or Move to Uncyclopedia Ok, just joking. Delete non-notable, original research. patent nonsense. By the way, Liakopoulos is a kind of "village idiot" here in Greece and this must have been a hoax page ("Look malaka, they put Liakopoulos on Wikipedia! O kairos gar eggys!") --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a reason for deletion. There are articles about many prominent idiots in Wikipedia (do you want me to call their names?)Biophys 23:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I can provide sources user:Panosfidis

comment providing sources isn't going to help. The article is just not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. It needs to be published somewhere else. Capmango 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK here are the sources. First of all his own bookstore

  • [1]the description (in Greek) says about how Russia threatens the new world order.
  • [2]This is the book of prophecies about the Russian involvement according to God's directions
  • [3] a book about modern prophecies
  • Then in this channel [4] you can find more than 90 videos where he oppenly calims the above stuff. I think this makes the article reliable enough. Maybe it is written in a wrong style but then it needs cleanup but not deletion. user:Panosfidis

LOOK MEN obviously there is an obvious majority of 7 people against 3 who want this article to be deleted but there were over a dozen people (including me) who have been editing this article for over a year. You cannot spit on all their faces even AFTER presented with the sources that prove that the contents are real. user:Panosfidis

  • Panosfidis, it's clear that you care very much for the article and feel very strongly about it. However using language like this is not going to improve your case. Applying Wikipedia criteria to an article does not amount to spitting on anyone. The sources you have presented are all primary: in other words they are this man talking about himself and his views. No secondary sources means no notability. There is no argument that the content is real. You don't need to prove that. The problem is that it is not notable. Sorry. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OF COURSE there are secondary sources. These claims are the ones that made him famous and popular. Gimme some time user:Panosfidis

OK there you go. First there is an entire internet community dedicated to analysing these claims and prophecies. [5] if you search for these prophecies in google you get more than 500 results [6] if you search about his relation with putin you get 1030 results [7] are they notable? Not all of them but some of them are really important. Like this one [8] edited by Ioannis Fourakis. Even in Athensnews.gr you can find two entries [9]. So YES these claims are notable. user:Panosfidis

    • Forget the '7 to 3' -- this isn't a vote. And I don't think anyone is disparaging the article or the work that went into it, anyway I'm not. Nor am I questioning its verifiablity, notability, or sources. But I don't think anyone has made the case as to why this article belongs in an encyclopedia, rather than for example in a magazine. It's not a bad article, it's just a bad fit, IMHO. Capmango 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, original "research", unencylopedic, unfunny. Pavel Vozenilek 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator.--Yannismarou 17:01, 11 June 2007 (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.