Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Greece

WP:DSGREECE

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Greece. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Greece|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Greece.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Greece/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Greek Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Greece related AfDs

Greece

Vicky Theodoropoulou

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

I've looked, others have looked, nobody has found any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A good portion of the edits over the nearly sixteen years the article has been here have been from a series of single-purpose accounts that have no editied any other articles. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Greece. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can find zero independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and Greece. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: could you maybe try just a little bit to be sure you know what you are doing? You've certainly been around long enough to not be adding things like the "about us" page from a private event company and claiming it is is a reference in a BLP. Several other alleged references are retail book outlets, also not in any way an independent reliable source. And you've added this AFD to two delsort lists that I already added it it to when nominating. This is just sloppy, unthoughtful refbombing and tagging, please do better. Thanks. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panta n' antamonoume

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Greece. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Greek name is Πάντα ν' ανταμώνουμε. I find it very hard searching in Greek. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep? (or redirect to the channel or to Rika Vagiani, where I've just added it). https://program.ert.gr/details.asp?pid=3844901&chid=11 ; NewsBomb articles https://www.newsbomb.gr/tag/panta-na-antamwnoyme including https://www.newsbomb.gr/media-agb/story/429147/erhetai-to-panta-nantamonoyme) or this kind of things: https://typologies.gr/πάντα-ν΄ανταμώνουμε-στη-δτ-με-την-α/ (and yes, it's in Greek),-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleftopolemos

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

Poorly written and translated article that contains nothing but a version of guerilla warfare, written from a Greek nationalist POV. There is nothing in here that is specific to the Greek War of Independence and cannot be applied to guerrilla movements more broadly (ambushes, raids, small group tactics, field fortifications), as the article itself sort of admits. Delete and redirect to guerrilla warfare. Constantine ✍ 12:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely, the first time anyone thought of an ambush was in the 19th century... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records

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

article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a splendid merge candidate that did not need to come to AfD. I see no reason why a redlink would be a better solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, delete everything else crated by OrangedJuice for obvious self-promotion or public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of the redirect if the artist founders are also found non-notable. Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà

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

No assertion of WP:NBIO for a living person. The article is largely a very dubious exercise in claiming titles defunct since the Middle Ages. Main 'scholarly' source is an article at the Social Science Research Network that does not appear to have been published in academic journals and thus not subject to peer review. Constantine ✍ 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, the only substantive source here is effectively self-published. Nor does there appear to have been any interest in reliable sources of the holders in pretense to a title that has been irrelevant since the mid-15th century. Lubal (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Respectfully, why do you view this as dubious? There are many articles, of various descendants, of various Houses on WP. This is no different, and as a researcher of this particular area of history, Frankokratia and the Principality of Achaea, it absolutely seemed appropriate for there to be an article created, especially after seeing that a recent case study was written about the topic. As to your other points, a good portion of the paper discusses the claims of the extinct Italian Tocco family until 1933, with the death of its last claimant, less than one hundred years ago, so this is not something that hasn't been thought about since the middle ages as you said but it has been present almost until WWII. The case study that you mentioned was in fact picked up by the "Legal History eJournal," curated by a known professor at Yale University, Reva Siegel of the Law School. I would not have used this source if it appeared that a trusted expert had not laid eyes on it as I fully know and understand the rules of WP.

Thanks. Eugene de Moree (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Eugene de Moree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article itself is about a non-notable person, whose biographical details occupy a handful of lines and are nothing extraordinary. Most of the content is about the titles, rather than their current presumed holder. This might be OK for a blog article, not an encyclopedia. On the various articles about various descendants of nobility, yes, they exist, but then the descendants are notable, or at least the titles are notable; the pretender to the throne of France is of a different order of notability than the Damalades. Wikipedia also has deleted articles for nobles who did not satisfy criteria for notability, even from royal houses, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark. The most important problem with the rest of the article is that it makes unsupported claims. Assuming the lineage is correct (which is always a big if with genealogy, especially the Zaccaria-Damalas connection, I have had quite a few battles over this over at the Damalas talk page), at one point one of his ancestors had the title 'King and Despot of Asia Minor', which was a one-off symbolic award without any real substance, as Asia Minor was lost to the Turks at the time. The article makes the casual reader think that this title had substance, through the entirely erroneous and unsupported assertion that Martino did control a sizable portion of the defined boundaries of this Kingdom, he did not control it in its entirety...reclaim the said territories, which is patently false as soon as you look upon a map and compare Chios, Phocaea, and Smyrna to the rest of Asia Minor. Furthermore, I am not aware of any Damalas-Zaccaria claim to the title of Prince of Achaea, in contrast to the well attested Tocco claim. Whether the Tocco had the right or not, they laid claim; the Damalades, who for most of the period were an obscure Chiot family, did not. The article suggests that these titles are claimed by 'Prince Constantine' by virtue of descent, but whether he knows or is interested in such a claim is uncertain; the phrasing of the article is almost teleological, but thin on evidence on that matter. It is not for Wikipedia's users to award him these titles because of Salic (or any other) law, or making judgments based on the observed dynastic succession. This is the essence of WP:NOR. If this person makes these claims and if these are recognized by independent authorities (i.e., not someone who was paid for the job), and if this claim, or any other of his actions, attract notability sufficient to satisfy our criteria, then he is to be included here. Constantine ✍ 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how being heir to the patrimony of this historic family is not noteworthy in its own right. Not to mention the close relations to the last members of the Byzantine imperial family through blood and marriage. As a historian, I would absolutely say that this is worth people being able to read about. Perhaps make some corrections, sure, but this should be out there, and this is why I created the page after finding the very valuable case study. I do think that you may have some misunderstanding on what I wrote about Martino though, because the Lordship of Chios (which I linked in the text) was more than Chios and Phocaea. So I am not sure how one could think that I was being misleading. Martino's kingly title was titular in nature, yes, but a high hereditary honour nonetheless. Actually, the fact that it was not attached to an actual fief means that it's transmission to descendants is cleaner than that of other royal titles that were attached to territories that are now lost. It is one of the very few instances in history where the title of king has been given as a titular honour, and therefore would legally remain fully intact today. Just these few things are notable. Lastly, the case study plainly states that Constantine knows about his patrimonial inheritance. It also says the strict method of ascertaining the proven genealogical connection. The fact that you thought otherwise leads me to believe that you did not fully read the study. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, all the information about Constantine Zaccaria Damala is taken from "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea". “The handful of lines” is because I am not in a position to know further insights about this person apart from what is already written in this particular article. Also, personal information can be found in the new publication of the Annuario, on the page discussing the history of house Zaccaria-Damalas, and was sent to me through mail. The Annuario does not approve nobility status without a rigid reflection first. Obviously, the British Royal family members have a greater degree of notability than each member of the house Zaccaria-Damala. Still, this article is about the Head of the House, not a brother, sister, cousin, or a distant relative and certainly, this is NOT the first case of a noble in WP with only a handful of information to adorn his/her page. The few insights provided (parents, wife, place, date of birth) do not mean this person doesn’t exist.

Martino indeed controlled Chios, Phocaea, and half of the city of Smyrna for some time, the titular imperial couple of the Latin Empire recognized this sovereignty. The diploma was granted in 1324 and Martino lost Chios in 1329, certainly, the Kingdom that Emperor Philip and Empress Catherine envisioned and for which they even crafted a crown and appropriate regalia was one where Chios, etc were included. This is why I linked the page Lordship of Chios to the chapter of the article. If you read the diploma -I linked it to the page references- you shall see that the imperial Latin couple of Naples are especially specific on what they offer to Martino and that this is very true and not a vague idea.

The article makes it clear that after the mid-15th century, the Zaccaria-Damalas family did not openly claim the title of the Prince of Achaea, and the title was monopolized by house Tocco (where in the article I mention that the post-1469 Zaccarias held the title?), though it concludes that with the extinction of the Tocco line in 1933, the senior descendant of house Damalas (for reasons analyzed in detail by the author) can rightfully claim the title now that is vacant for decades.

“not someone who was paid for the job”

These accusations are concerning and it is more useful to be avoided as they are potentially directed against an academic of Yale University and a researcher for whom we know nothing in order to insult them this way and are not present in the undergoing discussions to support their thesis. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The study is interesting, but it is not WP:RS as it has not undergone peer review. I have perused it, and though it states that Constantine Paul Damalas is interested and took steps to verify his descent and lineage, that's about it. The very abstract of the study is clear IMO: "This study delves into the intricate succession landscape surrounding the medieval title of Prince of Achaea...its theoretical rehabilitation in favor of the Damalas descendants of the Zaccaria Princes of Achaea", and this is reinforced later on "since the current claim that is available to Constantine Paul Damalas" (p. 98). I.e., this study is an examination of descent and possible claims under a legal perspective, and nothing more. The assignation of these titles as is done in the article is yet to be established.

Plus, as I have stated in a different discussion we had, this cannot be seriously considered a WP:RS without the actual study to examine and verify. My reference to being paid for something is exactly on this, as the study was clearly commissioned by someone, and not undertaken in the interests of scholarly research (MyHeritage is not an academic institution, but a fee-based service). Taking an uncharitable view, this is no different than all the medieval upstart monarchs who paid some scholar to 'discover' links to the ancient Greeks, Romans, or Jews. As a lot of the argument hinges on this study, color me unconvinced. But the veracity or not of the claim is indeed somewhat beside the point: the article simply does not establish notability of the subject per WP:NBASIC. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on upstart monarchs conducting fraudulent discoveries, still Annuario della Nobiltà holds some very strict requirements on accepting new houses to be included on its pages and there's no way to grant nobility status without extensive research. As there is a scientific committee conducting independent research. The paper of Stornaiolo Silva cites Annuario and makes it clear that the aristocratic status of Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà has been approved. The Annuario would thoroughly examine her work and would not publish it if she could not provide the extensive proof that they require. The MyHeritage chart seems like a simplification of her research to help the reader have all the genealogical information in one file.

I think there is even a small degree of notability through Annuario and "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" and the little information available is not against the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia. Especially when we are dealing with members of old dynasties lost in history, usually, we have scarce information known, but that doesn't stop many editors from actually establishing a small article about them with four or five lines.

The paper states clearly that Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà is actively pursuing the princely title since 2023. Eugene de Moree (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Annuario della Nobiltà still hasn't published the newest version that is referenced in the article though, so verification remains an issue... And again, the veracity of descent is one thing, the active pursuit of the nobiliary claim another, and notability a third. The deletion request is based on notability, not of the family or the title, but of the holder. Even complete frauds like Peter Mills or Eugenio Lascorz have some wider presence in scholarly literature, which attests to their notability. Here we have no information other than this person exists, and that from a non-RS. Constantine ✍ 20:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding proof of inclusion in the Annuario. For the same reason, I reached out to the author of the case study to see proof of this when writing this article. He produced this proof in the form of a PDF, which is an extract from the Annuario's database and is exactly how the pages will appear in the next edition. I received this as well as an email where the editor confirmed the successful review of all documentation and approval for publication. I can readily provide the same proof that was provided to me.

As I mentioned in several other comments, being the head/senior heir of this lineage is historically notable in itself. There are many examples on WP where this is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but a few examples would be: "Princess Vittoria of Savoy", "Prince Jaime, Duke of Noto", and "Joachim, Prince of Pontecorvo." All of these either have little biographical information, nothing truly noteworthy besides the noble lineage that they come from, or both. Furthermore, none are heads of their respective Houses either, unlike Constantine.There are many, many more on WP, and if really necessary, I will share more. I should hope that this is strong enough reasoning to conclude that notability shouldn't be an issue here, and the only way that it could be would be to pick favorites. We should be encouraging the coverage of all history, not only the mainstream and I know that you agree with that.

It would be one thing if this person had some ridiculous imaginary Order of Knighthood or was granting bogus titles, but as explicitly mentioned in the case study, he nor his family have ever done anything of the sort nor they claim to be "the last Palaiologoi alive" and I found that refreshing and worthy of recording/highlighting their respectable patrimony for others to read.

The thing is, an argument for his notability would have been more legitimate if he had "granted bogus titles", because then there would be press about his actions. The fact of the matter is he has not done anything worthy of note, especially in regard to this noble family that he is supposedly the head of. It doesn't matter if you find it "refreshing" and "worthy of recording".. it hasn't been "recorded" by legitimate independent sources. He is not notable. Virtue is not a credential for establishing notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I will agree with you on, is that there needs to be an explicit mention that Constantine claims his hereditary inheritance. It is clear from the study that he is interested, but it doesn't explicitly state that he is claiming it. I don't think this is a reason to delete the article, but it is reason enough to reword it to reflect this current understanding.

Actually in the article one can find much more information about this case, that I did not added at the current WP article, but now that I rethink of it, I should have. These will boost the notability of this person as they include information that prove that this "Achaean case" is too singular to be ignored. Eugene de Moree (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that could establish notability of this person would be reliable, independent sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any kind of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As someone interested in late Frankokratia, I welcomed the addition of previously unknown information on the topic. Just as with other defunct countries, if there are heirs living to this day, then it is definitely notable and this page should ex as the articles of other heirs doist. Also, I would like to add that perhaps editors responding here should take the time to read the entire case study as I have done, since all the points against this article are not accurate or true. This reis is longer than the time it took some to reply here. Alfor tome to so say that there is no notability of any kind is absurd, and likely anti-monarchist biaOtherwise, one would have to delete all pages on the topic of heirs. s. Laurelius (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Laurelius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I can assure you I have no "anti-monarchist bias" as I have created hundreds of articles on royal and noble persons. But I see no notability established within this article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I was not referring to you, but the user that only wrote that it was not notable. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Laurelius (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been included in the Yale ejournal and has been curated by an academic of the university. I contacted the author of the article before establishing the page and he mailed me that this article is going to be published as a book in the near future with a greater decree of information available about the topic. He mentioned that the publisher is an active one in the academic field. By what I understood, the book will be concluded in the next months. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things may change in the future. But right now, "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" appears to be only on SSRN, which is considered a self-published source here (it's a pre-print archive with no peer review), and as far as I can tell, no edition of Annuario della Nobiltà supporting this article's claims has actually been published yet. If that comes out, and "Achaean Disputes" gets publication in a book with reliable editorial oversight, it may be appropriate to revisit this. Also, keep in mind that "notable" is a term of art at Wikipedia; just because something is "not notable" in Wikipedia's sense doesn't mean it isn't interesting or even important, just that it does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion. Lubal (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not self published https://www.ssrn.com/link/legal-history.html, the professor reviewed and agreed that it was worthy of posting in her eJournal at Yale. Also Annuario is going to be published this November and its content is most likely finished thus it's hard to imagine that an author whose working with Yale University would use references from the Annuario without having access to the text. Also the genealogical research of Ms Souli has been approved by the committee of Annuario as they informed me.

I understand your concerns and I share some of them. My proposal is for the article to remain but it must be heavily edited as its current form is problematic. More personal nformation about Constantine Zaccaria Damalà should be added (taken from the "Achaean Disputes, one can find more there) while the passages discussing the titles of this person should be reduced.

If in the next months the research of Stornaiolo Silva is not published as a book with academic editorial oversight and the publication of Annuario makes no mention of the protagonist of this case, then I will nominate it for deletion myself. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nomination discussion is happening now, because sources do not exist. If sources are created after the deletion, then you could re-write the article. But as it stands now, this subject is not notable in any way. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with some of the previous voters. Self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, no matter where they are published. Keivan.f^Talk 13:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scion of a country that hasn't existed for hundreds of years is not the allegation of notability that a few folks think it is. Otherwise, hundreds of people would be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many people do you know are senior agnates/legal heirs to any former sovereign state? Even if there were hundreds, compared to over eight billion people, that's rather notable. It is one thing to argue that it doesn't meet WP guidelines, sure, but let's not be ridiculous. Royal and even noble families routinely die out in the legitimate male line, and that is the rule, not the exception. When there are extant families, the only relevant person is the senior heir if we're being honest with ourselves. Sorry to be so blunt, but some of the comments need stay in reality instead of becoming emboldened by the scales of opinion here. Laurelius (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, Wikipedia's guidelines on notability are not established by who we do or don't know. If he were notable, he would have been written about. No one here is sharing personal opinions on the matter.. we are simply reminding you of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood, this is about WP guidelines. I think the disconnect here is that WP's idea for notable is not the same as in reality/everyday life. The actual definition of notable is: "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable," and the definition of remarkable is: "worthy of attention; striking." If you were to go to a party, and someone pointed out that the individual of this discussion was there, and disclosed the facts about them, it would absolutely be remarkable and striking because it is not something "run-of-the-mill" as one commenter erroneously tried to suggest, it's very rare to come across. If he has been a private individual, you wouldn't find much on him, but it doesn't reduce the fact that his existence is infact notable. I can respect that WP can do whatever it wants with its guidelines/rules, and I respect the very successful platform that has been built, but let's at least acknowledge the glaring difference of what the dictionary/humans says notable is, and what WP says it is, even if only for the sake of helping newer users understand this and not polarize discussions. We don't have be androids about it when you're not speaking to an android at the other end of the keyboard. That is just my two cents, and I'm sure it will be met by some technical, rule based response, which will completely miss my point just like the other points made here, but that's okay. Laurelius (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Annuario has already confirmed this person as a noble and head of house Zaccaria Damalà. It is only a matter of time until it's published and I have the full reference so to use it in WP and I will! I've made contact with them before making the article as it would have been absurd to establish an article without further knowledge of the situation. Actually house Damalas Zaccaria has a confirmed connection to the rulling families of Byzantine Empire (house Kantakouzenos, Asen, Palaiologos) and of course the Principality of Achaea-Morea and its nobility status is not something debatable (also confirmed by Annuario). Eugene de Moree (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable. The Annuario does not establish WP:GNG. If he does not meet the GNG guidelines, he is not notable. If it is "only a matter of time", then you can wait to write the article again. As it stands now, there are no credible, independent sources that establish his notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Koumbios

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

The subject is not notable. There are few (if any) reliable secondary sources; the single source used is apparently from 2006 and only available through archive.is. LoganP25 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LoganP25 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenized Middle East

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

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [1]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH. Aearthrise (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.

It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.

As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon, because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime. Aearthrise (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "Fork" information borrowed from the Partition of Babylon page, which pertained to the first rulers of the regions, and now the Hellenistic regions list section only includes the region names and important cultural tidbits from those regions. Aearthrise (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
- Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
- The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
- The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
  
  Further, you make an argument about "eurocentricity", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas. Aversion to the word "Middle East" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.
  
  You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.
  
  For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response. Aearthrise (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here. Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done). It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate. It's bizarre synth. Furius (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly... Furius (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread. Aearthrise (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this once to get editors' assessment of article changes. But if there are editors who are opposed to Deletion, please suggest a simple alternative outcome that a closer can carry out. AFD discussions are not resolved by complicated rewriting scenarios. The options are limited with AFD closures and they are decided by consensus so if you are arguing for something complicated, you need to win over your fellow editors to your point-of-view which usually requires simplification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly. I am thus also for delete; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace.Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three "red flags" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism. Why is the map a red flag? It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.
- For your other two "flags", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with "3rd" century BC, and writing the word "state of Judea" instead of "province of Judea". I implore you to give a real example of "factual inaccuracies" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.
- You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism. Aearthrise (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate "the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC". These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter. The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream. Furius (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map:
  One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of "cultural syncretism". I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time:
  
  Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34:
  
  The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt. But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.
  
  Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221:
  
  A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece. According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.
  
  And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416:
  
  According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism. It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity. This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.
  
  Your second point, "The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism. There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty.
  
  Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46:
  
  Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya. After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire. During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura. Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara. Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.
  
  Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36:
  
  A "marital alliance" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC... This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world. There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage. This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.
Aearthrise (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The leap you make from "allies and peers in the dharma" to cultural syncretism is WP:SYNTH. None of your cited sources link the two things. O'Grady does talk about Indo-Greek syncretism, but she's talking about the Kushans. The caption does not mention what the map was actually drawn to depict at all. On your second point, depicting all these places in a single colour, together, without any borders presents them as a united region. Furius (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated claim of "synth" is totally unfounded, not only from earlier comments, but this one too. It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other. That is the literal definition of "syncretism", and to deny so is to play a game of ignorance. Beyond that, to say O'Grady is referring to the Kushans is a total misreading of the quote; she mentions the Kushans only as an example of the presence of the aforementioned syncretism in the great statues of Gautama Buddha they erected.

Furthermore, you say the map's caption does not mention what the map was drawn to depict; So what? You act like repurposing content for use in another topic is something wrong. Regardless of its origins, it's a clean map that helps illustrate the idea of the culturally allied region, which is the point of Ashoka's declaration of who he considers Dharmic peers.

You say "On your second point". No, this was your second point Furius, and I responded to it by showing that your previous claim about the nature of the map was incorrect and your own invention: neither the map nor the caption claimed anything you said.

Now, because you don't want to admit your error, you're changing the argument to that because the map represents the three named regions as one unit, it makes the map wrong. If I showed a map of World War II depicting the European allies as one unit (being the cleanest map found for use) to illustrate the early British contribution to the war, and wrote "map of Britain, France, and Poland in alliance, 1939" would you also say it is wrong and "Synth" because it includes a single color, borderless map of the allied countries? I wouldn't.

As a closing comment: just today, I have encountered another map that has colors and borders. I've changed the map; so now, you don't even have this point to dispute. All of your points, the ones that led you to make this article deletion request, have been defeated. Aearthrise (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good that you've changed the map. You say "It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other." That's true.* That is why we have articles on Greco-Buddhism and Indo-Greek art (and Buddhist influences on Christianity on the limits of that syncretism). It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period. It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does). It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another) Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are reaching for straws and now making arguments from ignorance. You repeat the same silly phrasing "it remains" three times:

"It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period."

You are saying that because the Hellenistic period article exists, we should delete this article. Following your logic, we should also delete "Roman Africans" because the article shares points with Africa (Roman province) and Romanization (cultural). That's stupid.

"It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does)."

You are saying this article should be deleted because it covers the specific Hellenistic Middle East area rather than including Europe or the Mediterranean. That's also stupid.

"It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another)."

You have not proven this point at all, and are just claiming it without providing any evidence. Clearly from the work on this article, this region is definable and has certain traits: it's an area of syncretism between Greek and Middle Eastern cultures. The area changed over time, in traits and even religion, and this article reflects that.

If you want to disprove it, show what citations you're referring to that aren't consistent with the definition. Aearthrise (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* It's moot, since the map has been changed, but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole, which is what a map captioned "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record). Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's moot, then why are you arguing? Are you full of hot air and want to let it out?

"...but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole,Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record)"

This is another stupid comment, and not based in reality. There is nowhere in the phrasing "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" that says Indo-Greek culture was a characteristic of the Middle East as a whole. All it says, is that these regions are in syncretism, i.e. they influence each other. You're extrapolation that the caption implies everywhere in the Middle East had Indo-Greek culture is incorrect, and just another one of your misreadings. Aearthrise (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot of these delete comments come from people *BEFORE* this page received so much content, namely Mccapra, RangersRus, and NebY; I was only notified 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request. Furius originally claimed that Hellenized Middle East is a "made-up term not used in scholarship", although his search clearly showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common "Hellenistic Middle East", with a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period article, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and copy to a sandbox, per Constantine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give a reason why instead of just saying "per Constantine", as his argument hinges on three "red flags": the map, and then two gripes about a typo and a word choice. Aearthrise (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you read WP:BLUDGEON. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is "bludgeoning" you? Aearthrise (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON.

Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR

Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture". WP:OR

Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS. "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of "WP:OR" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis.

You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific.

This is the section using the sources you claim are "not reliable": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa.^[1] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion. Hellenists formed this diverse world culture.^[2]^[3]

Further you claim that "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and "travel guides" are WP:RS, but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.

It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it. Aearthrise (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under current name (or possibly another). The conquest of Alexander the Great led to a significant Hellenic influence on the Middle East. This is worthy of an article on the spread of Greek culture in the Middle East. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Greece

Greece

Vicky Theodoropoulou

Panta n' antamonoume

Kleftopolemos

Apoapsis Records

Prince Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà

Michalis Koumbios

Hellenized Middle East

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Archives