Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christos Sariannidis


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Ian13/ talk 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Christos Sariannidis
Non-notable person whose only claim to fame is that he accidentally stumbled over a prehistoric skull once. No other information about this person is available. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't appear to be notable by WP:BIO. The link provided hints that the accidental find was a breakthrough in palaeoanthropology. If true, the find might justify a mention on that article (I'm not qualified to judge)... but the finder doesn't seem to be a scientist, just someone who got lucky. The article really doesn't do itself any favours in this regard, and google wasn't much help. - Motor (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Thirteen unique google hits. Possibly worth a one sentence mention in an article on Archanthropus, but that article does not yet exist.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Motor; stumbling in a skull doesn't make him notable.--Aldux 17:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No excuse for having him here. --Macrakis 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. So what if Christos Sariannidis is non-notable. Notability, if anything, is an ever-changing and fluid concept. Case in point, people have been given awards post-humously meaning that they became notable after they died. Prior to becoming notable, they were either ignored or not taken very seriously by their "mainstream" contemporaries. I don't see why the article should be deleted just because Sariannidis discovered something by accident. There have been people who discovered things by accident and helped "mainstream" academia propel itself forward into new directions of research. Shouldn't these people deserve some credit even if it entails a one-sentence article? Deucalionite 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, that would be fine for a newspaper or an opinions piece or an essay or a blog or a book etc., but no matter how much this superficially resembles other online electronic media, this is an encyclopedia, which by its very nature is a third or even fourth source ideally relying on and synthesizing primary or secondary sources. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Quite frankly, I don't care if an encyclopedia is a tenth source that relies on tertiary sources to acquire information. Many people today who own computers utilize Google to acquire information. When you do a Google search on, say, an historical figure, a Wikipedia article is usually the first hit that appears. So, if someone were interested in Christos Sariannidis specifically, then he or she would type it in and find out that such an article exists. From there, the researcher discovers that there is more information that links Sariannidis to certain important events. What if there are people who know Sariannidis, but do not know much about the Petralona Cave? Sariannidis is just a stepping-stone for readers to learn more about Aris Poulianos, the Petralona Cave, the Petralona Man, etc. Overall, people should be able to access information as easily as possible with articles that serve as stepping-stones for further research. If a person removes a stepping-stone article just because it is "non-notable", then who is to stop such a person from doing the same thing to a "non-notable" article with well-researched content that deserves to be in Wikipedia? Remember, notability is not necessarily the only thing that defines an article's validity or importance. Deucalionite 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The only reason anybody would ever search for information on Sariannidis, would be either because they already know about his role with the Petralona Cave, or because he was their grand-uncle. Nobody else would even know his name. In either case the article won't tell them anything new, and never will, because there simply isn't anything known about him except that he strolled into the cave on one sunny day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have no control over what Google will find. But you are of course free to publish information about Sariannidis in various other places on the Web, where Google will find it.  For that matter, Google today finds (among other resources) http://www.aee.gr/english/6petrlona/40years/40years.html.  For that matter, if there were an article on the Petralona cave discoveries in Wikipedia, it might be reasonable to mention Sariannidis there, and Google would find that, too.  The only issue here is whether Sariannidis deserves his own article on Wikipedia, following Wikipedia rules (not your personal judgement).  It is quite clear both from the wording of the rules and from the discussion here that he does not. --Macrakis 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. How do you know that? Are you a psychic? This is yet another reason why I do not take your statements seriously (failing to take me seriously in a previous discussion was the other reason). Unfortunately, you are missing the point Future Perfect. Deleting one stepping-stone article will lead people like you to go off and delete (or nominate for deletion) other "non-notable" articles that actually do have new information and are actually worthy content-wise. So, if you want to delete the Christos Sariannidis article (just so you can deliberately destroy one piece of work I created), then have a ball. However, I am afraid the concept of "checks-and-balances" does not exist within your methodologies, which is the only reason why I am usually adamant in preventing you specifically from going off and destroying my work (or asking others to do the destroying for you). Deucalionite 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Deucalionite, no one is trying to "destroy your work". But if you insist on systematically violating Wikipedia policy about notability, your edits will be reverted. You may be right, maybe in 2053 Sariannidis will be recognized as a major figure in 20th century archaeology, at which point Wikipedia should mention him. But until then, notability is not about what might be, but about what is.  --Macrakis 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry Macrakis, but when someone wikistalks me I have to assume the worst. I don't want to, but I am not given many options when big useless signs and rampant "wikifications" from a certain someone prevent me from correcting my mistakes (with help from honorable users). I like how you brand me as a "systematic violator of Wikipedia policy". It has a nice "mythologizing" effect to it (yes, fear me for I am god of the "violations underworld"; just kidding).


 * Anyway, writing articles about people should not be oriented on expecting them to be gloriously famous. Notability is about what "is" and what "could be" (not what "might be"). Example: I might be an engineer, but I could be a doctor. See the difference? The articles I write entail people who "could" be notable in some future time or "could" be rejected by "mainstream" academia for some interminable amount of time. However, to deem the people I write about as "might-be's" only ignores what they have accomplished already. This means that irrespective of whatever "mainstream" academia believes a scholar to be does not change the fact that the scholar conducted research, discovered artifacts, etc. Focus on just the facts until "mainstream" academia comes around to state, "Such and such academic is a worthy person...blah, blah, blah".


 * Christos Sariannidis, you could state, did not accomplish much. So he "could" be a great discoverer in some future time, but to deem him as a "might be a great discoverer" already ignores the fact that he discovered something that did have an impact on archaeology. I know you want to uphold Wikipedia policy as best as you can. However, all policies are perfectly imperfect and imperfectly perfect. This means that Wikipedia policy should continue to maintain certain standards, but should also include rules where it distinguishes "non-notable" articles that are absolutely useless to readers and "non-notable" articles that are beneficial. If Wikipedia continues to marginalize "non-notable" articles with interesting and well-researched information, then the encyclopedia will only exacerbate even moderate users who only want to contribute and help readers become more aware of certain events/people.


 * If you want to delete the Sariannidis article, then go ahead. However, I have yet to acquire a guarantee from anyone that a system of "checks-and-balances" be implemented to prevent people from deciding that my articles deserve to be deleted just because they lack glitter and glamor. Once I am given a guarantee (from editors, administrators, whatever) that the rampant "must delete" and "must hinder" campaigns on my work stop, then I will be fine in allowing one of my articles to fall gracefully. This is not extortion. This is not "wikiterrorism." This is not anti-Wiki ranting and raving (though I have done that already). This is not a soapbox. Finally, this is not an insistence on my part to "violate Wikipedia policy". This is a simple request for a guarantee instead of being told that "everything will be fine" and then get backstabbed the next minute. If you understand the rudimentary dynamics of an honor code, then you will understand the meaning of my request. Deucalionite 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid I have no idea who you are and frankly does it matter? When people vote to delete or keep - it's generally based upon an article - let's say someone does have a grudge against you - what about the rest of us? why would I care about your articles or you? I saw it on the delete page, it's not notable, thus I feel it should be deleted. --Charlesknight 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Simple logic only works to an extent my friend. Granted you are correct in that focus should be maintained on the article, but articles are created, deleted, modified, and updated by people. Therefore, articles are socially constructed (ask yourself, do you see articles creating themselves?). So, if you do not understand the social "politics" behind an article, then it becomes more difficult for you to communicate with people who you might need help from one day. Deucalionite 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Who cares about the politics behind an article? - as an editor, you should be asking yourself a)does this article add something to wikipedia and b) does it mean the requirements of wikipedia. In my view, that article does neither. Editors should not be swayed because "You might need help from people one day". --Charlesknight 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: sorry this is spilling over here. Deucalionite is upset because I've been on a rather systematic campaign of "cleaning up" behind him, which has involved three AfDs and a number of {copyvio} tags. He feels I'm stalking him, and I can even understand up to a point that he should be upset. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Didn't you state something about "ruthless purging campaigns"? Also, if you "understand" why I am upset, then why did you not listen to my simple request for you to leave me be? You, and everyone else, could have avoided all this. If you are truly a "civilized Wikipedian", then you would have kept an eye on me once in a while and not every ten seconds. Also, you have yet to admit that you implicitly deemed my statements as "trollish" on a previous discussion after we had an agreement of collaboration. To make a pact with me, and not take my statements seriously in a discussion is very rude. Now, I know the other voters here want to end this discussion as soon as possible (surprise, surprise, so do I). However, I have yet to receive a guarantee that Future Perfect stop stalking me and my work (also an apology would also be nice since being implicitly called a "troll" is very disrespectful). Still waiting. Deucalionite 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, doesn't appear to be notable by WP:BIO. --Charlesknight 20:29, 13 June 2006 (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.