Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athina Karamanlis


 * 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. WP:CONCENSUS and unsourced WP:BLP Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Athina Karamanlis


This came up on Proposed Deletion patrol. Even though technically Proposed Deletion had been contested before, I couldn't bring myself to remove the Proposed Deletion notice after discovering the very serious BLP problems here. This revision of the article will reveal that there are, simply put, two competing and mutually contradictory accounts of this person's life and works. Each denies the truth of the other. And there is no good source for either one. What non-reliable sources exist are perhaps exemplified best by these two discussion forum postings. All of the publications that document criminal activity are self-submitted postings to WWW sites, often by "George Manolakos", and all of the rebuttals are self-submitted postings have equally unidentifiable authors. One might argue that the current version of the article is therefore the proper one. But that turns out to be biographical information that is unverifiable from reliable sources, too. The Cardozo Sidebar is a graduate newsletter for the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and the only mention of this person that I have been able to find in it is in issue #11 of the newsletter dated Autumn 2005. It doesn't document this person at all, or support any of this claimed content. It's a list of alumni about whom nothing is known, and is asking for contact information for them. I am unable to find any good sources for anything on this subject. This is a wholly unverifiable biography of a living person. Uncle G (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Delete under WP:BURDEN.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the research of Uncle G, which my searches confirm. Deor (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete seems the safer route here. The subject may have some relatively minor notability as an academic, but that appears borderline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if current article is verified (which is dubious since the reference gives 404 for me), there is no notability asserted, and certainly fails WP:PROF. Judging by Google results, a minor Internet battle regarding subject's character has occurred with no reliable sources – not suitable for a WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2009 (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.