Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athanasios Kafkalides (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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Kafkalides[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

With regret. I can't find any sources to suggest the topic meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. The only source I can find is this family website, but perhaps that's a better place to host this material. The same article is at Greek Wikipedia but I don't see any additional sources there (though I don't read Greek; relying on Google Translate). Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I now see from Twinkle/AfD magic that there was a previous AfD from 2005 I missed in the history. I'm not sure that discussion adds much. We now have the Greek-character name (see link above). I looked for obituaries or any other source without luck. If there's something I missed, I'm happy to be educated. Ajpolino (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe psychiatrist has made no impact on mainstream literature based on GS citations. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The only source on him in Greek is a biography written by his son Zephyros Kafkalides (Ζέφυρος Καυκαλίδης in Greek), published in 2011. I suspect that the IP that created the article in 2005 was him, since whoever wrote its content had access to unpublished personal meterial of Athanasios Kafkalides. Later, after the publication of the book, he came back as user "Zephyros1948". Btw, the article in the Greek WP is just a translation of this one. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Keep Sources added by user Spiros71 show clues of notability. Some I had them removed, since they were not third-party, independent and/or reliable sources, but that doesn't change the overall impact made by the rest of the additional references. The main issue now is to keep the WP:NPOV in the article. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please revisit the page to see updated links and references.Spiros71 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above user Spiros71 seems to have a connection to the subject [1], [2], [3]. As fas as the sources added: one is only his son talking about him, the other is a brief presentation of his theory based on himself, and the third article, the only one that refers specifically to him, is a publication of a German psychoanalytic society of a specific trend, e.g. not a classic academic journal. Anyway, Kafkalidis obviously doesn't meet neither the general notability criteria nor those for academics and scientists. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The above user Chalk19 appears to be very convinced that an article on a pioneering Greek psychiatrist with a number of references in third-party journals and a considerable bibliography, should not be part of Wikipedia, and appears to be spending a lot of time and energy to that end, i.e. by downgrading specific academic journals. I am quite convinced to the contrary. Spiros71 (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Spiros71: You have your opinion and I have mine. You think I spend a lot of time and energy to have the artcle deleted. Well, you appear to be spending a lot of time to have Kafkalides in WP. You even created an article in Greek WP on his son [4]. Seems that you have spent a lot of time to have the whole family included in a couple of WPs ! ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I spend a lot of time on numerous articles that I believe deserve the world's attention and I happen to have specialist knowledge on a number of different fields that may come in handy in this, as well as in my ability to appreciate what is encyclopedic material and what is not. I do not spend any time on trying to get content deleted. My crusade is not to retract, is to give. And it so happens that this article in its 1st nomination already got a '''keep''' consensus, which is an indication that I am not the only one thinking that way. Spiros71 (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Υour approach is "psycological", not base on WP's guidelines on notability. What you may think on who deserves the world's attention via an article in WP is irrelevant, regardless if you are right or wrong on a subject. It's only the WP policy that matters. So, writing an article on a no-notable person is not creative, and deleting is not destructive, as you implied against my stance; quite the contrary. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  If you wish to argue about each other rather than about whether this topic meets WP:N, please do so at one of your talk pages. Ajpolino (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Many books cite Kafkalides. Search also Google Scholar for his impact in modern literature--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS cites are tiny, and I can't find these many books. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, as there are many books which cite himJackattack1597 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument (or maybe more accurately WP:VAGUEWAVE) repeated above that he has been frequently cited would be a basis for a WP:PROF#C1 claim, if true. However, it appears to be false. On Google Scholar, searching for author:A-Kafkalides finds only single-digit citation counts except for one work, The knowledge of the womb, listed as having 37 citations. I also searched for author:Καυκαλίδης but found zero additional citations. This is far far too few to pass WP:PROF#C1. No other claim to notability is evident in the article (which is puffed up with brief mentions that do not count towards WP:GNG) nor has been identified above. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (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.