Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Gikkas

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. Core desat 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Gikkas[edit]

Non-notable person. Speedy deletion was contested and not applicable in any case as notability was asserted. However, one published article is not enough to establish notability, hence I propose deletion. Crusio (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs I was the speedy, I of course agree that this person is not notable and has not distinguished themself in their field to the point of inclusion. And no sources for most of the data. Mbisanz (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Ctjf83 ^talk 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article is confusing as hell. Just kidding. Delete per notability guidelines, as cited by the nom. Keeper | 76 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, confusing anyway. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable lawyer. One published work, in a student publication: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairGreen27 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.Earthdirt (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Shark face 217 00:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly not notable. Tim Ross·^talk 22:54, 17 December 2007 (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.