Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannis Livadas

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Livadas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. No references based on reliable, third-party published sources. The subject has written many volumes of poetry and prose, but none of it appears to have been covered or reviewed in reliable journals. The current article links to a number of interviews (and there are many more online), but they're virtually all Blogspot and Wordpress sites. The few domains are unreliable (like Blues.gr) or were self-submitted by the subject (like Empty Mirror Books). A Google search finds pages and pages of links, but most of them are copies of Wikipedia or comment spam. Woodroar (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir. the domains are totally reliable and official; as the official web page of national data of all the Greek authors is. All the facts of this page are real and totally official, as well as the bibliography, both the greek one and the editions published abroad. ~~In case you procceed with the deleting of the page "Yannis Livadas" i will be forced to appeal with every legal right and force to press charges~~. Please fell free to contact me if you believe that there are any further loose ends on this "matter". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Mike (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mike is indef'ed for the above comment per Wikipedia:No legal threats. DMacks (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mike has now been unblocked after making it clear that he meant he would pursue Wikipedia dispute procedures rather than legal means, so I've struck that part of his comment above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the notability and verifiability problems, there's kind of a latent issue that a bot actually noticed way back in 2013: Much of this article—the bibliography section—appears to be copied and pasted from Livadas' LinkedIn profile. While the list of publications itself is probably not so creative to merit copyright protection, it's a bad sign from an article credibility perspective when you've got that much copied-and-pasted text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even if the list isn't a copyvio, it appears to be plagiarized. In addition to that, there are serious concerns about promotional content. Taken with the notability concerns voiced by OP and subsequent !votes, it's clear that this article just doesn't belong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of coverage that satifies WP:BIO notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2016 (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.