Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miltiades Varvounis


 * 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. Clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Miltiades Varvounis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Not a notable person or scientist. Just a writer of a couple of popular history essays which appeared in "pulp", mass-market editions sold in kiosks. Promotional article, may be written by Varvounis himself. The article on the same person created by the same user in Greek WP (see el:Μιλτιάδης Βαρβούνης) has been already deleted (14:36, 2nd July 2017 UTC) as lacking notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The entry is fine accompanied by numerous reliable references, while the author's biography on Jan Sobieski seems to be a popular book, which has nearly 50 reviews on Amazon, not bad at all for a "not a notable person", whose mother tongue is not English. Let's show respect to the author and his work. Historians, academic or not, with a bibliography (even if they have written only one book) deserve to be in Wikipedia for they represent knowledge. And Wikipedia is about knowledge. ——Dothraki1965


 * Comment Amazon registration of his book and reviews about it does not mean that he is either a notable historian, or a notable person. There is no substantial or in depth coverage of Varvounis work as a historian in given sources. References are mostly interviews of himself, e.g. not multiple, independent sources. On the other hand, there are stong indications of conflict of interest (COI) as fas as user Dothraki1965 is concerned, because of the pattern in creating the (now deleted) article in GreeK Wikipedia, which was repeated in en-WR: the article on Varnounis in both cases was created by user Eques sarmaticus, with contributions of only user Eques sarmaticus and user Dothraki1965. User Dothraki1965 seems to have a special interest on poromoting Varvounis in WP (the same is true of many of Eques sarmaticus contributions: e.g. this, and that etc). See, as well, addition of Varvounis name to this list of notable poeple born on February 9th in Greek Wikipedia by user Dothraki1965; the rest of his contributions in Greek Wikipedia include just 6 more edits, now all deleted, since they were all contributions to the deleted Greek article el:Μιλτιάδης Βαρβούνης. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Not a notable person, and the article is distinctly promotional in nature, even if it is slightly less so than an earlier version of the same article created by the same user which was recently deleted for copyright infringement. It is extremely likely that it was written by Varvounis himself or someone otherwise connected to him, thus having a conflict of interest. Chamboz (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No Delete It is a shame for someone to minimize the works of historians, even if some of their works are popular history essays! I am sure you know that only notable historians, even academics, have also written or co-written popular works or articles for several historical periodicals and newspapers such as Istorika by Elefterotypia, etc. All these people who write occasionally for these publishers are notable and worthy to be part of this process. And many historians in Greece would wish to have a published book in English and to have a success in sales and many reviews on the most prestigious platform - Amazon. As far as I am concerned, Varvounis deserves to be in Wikipedia, as every historian with a work behind him. Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.250.79 (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is not a matter of "shame" but of notability. It is neither a moral issue. Varvounis is not notable even as a writer of "popular" history. He is totally unknown in Greece, and seems that he is stuggling to promote himself by start giving a couple of interviews in Polish websites, and by trying to be in WP (he failed to do so in Greek Wikipedia). It is not a matter of Varvounis deserving to be or not in Wikipedia, but he mustn't be because there are no multiple, independent sources to support the contrary. ——Chalk19 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok, perhaps he is "totally unknown" in Greece as you claim, does it apply the same for Poland? And how can you be certain of that? Do you know Polish or his activities in the Polish press? It seems that he is not "totally unknown" in regards to Poland, as we can notice from his articles or interviews in that language, besides he was even interviewed by English-speaking websites. Being interviewed, it means you have a credibility, right? In addition, checking the internet, his articles have been presented in Visegrad Insight, Pangea Magazine, or the European Conservative. So how a "totally unknown" historian manages to be so active and being noticed beyond greek boundaries? You are thinking in narrow terms, of his work in Greek. That is the weak point of your weak arguments (actually, speculations), forgetting the fact that this person is also active beyond Greece. Apart from his books, his work in multiple periodicals or websites, plus his interviews, are appropriarate sources to claim his notability. Otherwise, his work would not be presented in the non-Greek press. So you cannot convince someone about his lack of notability. Unless you think that only giants of knowledge like Ostrogorsky or Halil Inalcik must only be presented in Wikipedia. It is like claiming that only Hollywood stars should have articles in Wikipedia, and not the rest - actors noted for their secondary roles and have not the fame of Brad Pitt, etc. Look around you, Wikipedia is full of individuals like Varvounis, even some of their articles lack references. And not all these people have nothing to do with the precious activity of history and knowledge. Yet, they are in Wikipedia. Eques sarmaticus (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. You have not answered why is he notable? Because of a couple of interviews? No reliable, multiple, and independent sources support your claim. And most important, you have not answered about your special interest in fiercely promoting Varvounis in both Greek and English Wikipedia. ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Why? I have answered above, unlike you who fails to convince the reader with your speculations. Furthemore, isn't it obvious? Or you consider totally insignificant and unnoticed his latest work. But of course, there could be an addition of more reliable and independent sources which mention or praises Varvounis' work. More references coming soon in the beginning of the article. Eques sarmaticus (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Puppets are voting? This and that is strong evidence, if not 100% proof, that users Eques sarmaticus and Dothraki1965 are the same person, most likely Varvounis, or at least they cooperate in WP to promote Varnounis. ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I appreciate the work done by Varvounis, and it does indeed lend him notability. However, Wikipedia has a higher standard for notability than Varvounis appears to meet. Wikipedia does indeed contain other "individuals like Varvounis," but that is just because no one has taken the time to delete them yet. Many pages are created that are not notable enough, and there are only so many people picking through deleting them. Having too many pages clutters up searches, as well as providing more work to keep them accurate and up-to-date.Tkwikihelper (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2017 (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.