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 keep. Courcelles 01:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Diakidis[edit]

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

unref article tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Please comment on notability of article. Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the operational definition of what constitutes a "large number" of such nominations, the nomination being considered here is constructed with two arguments from WP:ATA, a proof by assertion, and no evidence of following WP:BEFORE. I would say that between two to ten such nominations is "unquestionably disruption". One such nomination by itself might also be argued as unquestionable disruption, but there is no pattern to consider. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In requesting that I research this topic, you are asking me to do work that you could have done yourself, even after editors on your talk page have explained to you that your AfD nominations have been indiscriminate. The nominations that I have seen (I have only looked at about 10–20% of them so far) are composed of arguments from WP:ATA from the "Surmountable problems" section. The evidence I presented shows 250 consecutive delete !votes, almost all of which are deletion nominations. 250 AfDs is the maximum analysis allowed by the tool, and I have never before had a problem with the limit on the maximum number. In this case, 250 AfDs only returns two days worth of nominations. Behind those 250 is another 100 or so with the identical pattern. The number of related nominations is so large that the exact number is inconvenient to calculate. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor who posts at AfD is provided text that says, "discussion guidelines are available." This link leads to WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, which states, "...a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." Further down it says, "You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if...[a] nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Further down the page there is a section, WP:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. This section states, "Prior to nominating articles(s) for deletion, please be sure to:..." with sections A, B, C, and D. Relevant to the current AfD, point B6 states, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." Doing this check leads to this article, which without regard for its merit is relevant to this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom apparently did not realize that this has an article in the Greek WP, which has 2 good refs that just need to be transcribed over. AB, this is not careful work. Your assertion of unref is just plain wrong. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks for your hard work on this, Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2013 (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.