Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stavros Damianides

Add links
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. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Damianides[edit]

Stavros Damianides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an essay - but unfortunately an essay about a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NMUSIC. No references to the entire realm of WP:PUFFERY ES&L 09:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article has No prove of notbility under WP:GNG
  • Why would you call him a non notable? Many of the evidences were in photographs that have since been deleted and appear on other websites as a consequence. He was Australia's only respected Bouzouki player period. That plus he was in the West Australian and Daily News papers almost monthly with plenty of write ups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.183.30 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 58.170.183.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • How do you upload pictures? I have one with him on the Channel 9 stage at the Hyde Park festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you a Bot? This article was part of wikipaedea for 15 years. Also what I meant was how do you show info for the references? You say there are no references but there are many they just aren't digital.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim to notability and I can't find any decent sources. Granted, not all references would be digital (as stated above) but I would have expected something to be in the Sydney Morning Herald articles of the times if he was notable.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So by your reasoning we should then delete the reference to the Monarchy of Britain because they do not have notable reference in the Sydney Morning Herald to any lineage to the Byzantine or Roman court? Western Australian and Daily News have articles also the Walkanout magazine did a complete biographic. nuff said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.183.30 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a mind reader, but NO, I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article is poorly written, but we are not to discuss the MoS or writing in the article but rather the notability of the subject. Based on the information in the "references" section, the subject meets GNG but the information must be clearly associated with the material it's meant to reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: sorry, but what "information" in the references section? There are no references at all. The only things we have are vague assertions by Ephestion that there may be some coverage somewhere, but having seen that editor in action elsewhere, I definitely wouldn't take his word for it as long as he doesn't actually cite concrete verifiable instances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless concrete, substantial and verifiable sources are brought forward. Having searched extensively on Google, both on Latin and Greek spellings, I'm coming up virtually empty-handed. Even taking into account that this person's heyday was before the online age, and that his area of activity was something of a cultural niche (internationally speaking), one would expect a significantly higher level of presence in online media if his influence on the Greek music scene had been of a lasting kind. What little web presence I could detect of this person seems to a very large extent to be due primarily to the fact that he already was in Wikipedia for so long – virtually all the mentions of him in, for example, lists of people "died on this day" etc. seem to be in pages that are directly or indirectly Wikipedia mirrors or other similar pages of low source value, and biographical texts about him appear to be all copies of just one or two prototypes that get mirrored randomly somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the article infringes the copyright of Australian Walkabout Magazine based on a supposed copy of the article online. I tried to tag it per WP:CSD#G12, but the online site is blacklisted. Assuming the blacklisted site is correct, much of the Wikipedia article is copied word for word.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. Could you give some hint as to how to find that page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://tinyurl.com/ny9plwt.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, thanks. But I think that's not so much a copy of that Walkabout Magazine, but simply a mirror of an earlier state of our article, where the line "Australian Walkabout Magazine" (meant as a kind of source reference) was printed just like that, easily to be confused with a signature (e.g. [1]). You can see from the earlier history of our article before that version that the text mirrored on nationmaster was not imported in a single step in Wikipedia but had been the result of successive editing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP comment: On reflection, seeing as not a single word of the article is currently sourced, and we don't have a reliable source even for the claim that the subject is no longer alive, I conclude that we are forced by policy to apply WP:BLP#Recently dead or probably dead, i.e. treat this as a WP:BLP case. For this reason, I am going to remove all questionable claims from the article right now — that is, essentially everything. I'm just going to leave the lead sentence in, which is at least likely to be true. Please note that this will reduce the article to a state where it immediately falls under WP:CSD#A7, because all the statements that could potentially constitute a claim to significance will also be gone, although I will defer on acting under CSD for the moment. However, I expect nobody to reintroduce any material without citing a reliable source for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject seems to have been an interesting but not inherently notable person, from the perspective of an encyclopedia. However, I could not find reliable sources to demonstrate notability or even to verify the basic facts--the sources that I can find all seem to circle back to this WP article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a puff piece about a non-notable musician; everyone else has articulated the reasons why better than I can. As to FPAS' BLP argument, while I get the argument, I don't really buy it in this case and think it's procedurally unfair to gut the article on those grounds during the AfD. Having statements and phrases presently available in the article makes it easier for passersby to go out and find sources for individual statements (since they are useful as keywords). While I don't know how common the name "Stavros Damianides" is, suppose you had a subject named "John Smith" and wanted to find sources; you'd have trouble, to say the least, without some context to use as keywords in constructing a search query. And while the context is still present in the article history, a passerby, especially one not so familiar with Wikipedia, probably wouldn't realize that. We might as well say that, since we don't have sources, we should presume this article is a hoax and delete on those grounds. Nah. Just proceed on notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:57, 26 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Damianides&oldid=1090676646"