Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Greece

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Greece. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Greece related AfDs

Scan for Greece related Prods
Scan for Greece related TfDs


Greece

[edit]

Nevrakis

[edit]
Nevrakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced, containing unverifiable information, since 2009. No reliable sources found via Internet Archive, Wikipedia Library (general search), Oxford Reference, De Gruyter Brill, brief Google search (.com/.gr). This is a surname page with an empty list of people with this surname. Google turns up the conductor Nikiforos Nevrakis (who may indeed be notable) and the chess player Mihail Nevrakis, but these biographies do not currently exist on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, Greek Wikipedia does not appear to have an equivalent page for Νευράκης. Does not meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Currently this should not be a page. Coeusin (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That's a compelling argument to me Local Internet User (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No entities or sources and all I could find in a google search were characters. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921

[edit]
History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921 is a WP:CFORK of various parts from Northern Epirus, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, World War I in Albania, Albania during the Balkan Wars, Demographics of Albania and others. All parts of the article are in fact parts of other articles and within their scope.

There is no part of this article which isn't discussed in another article because the subject of the article itself is not an academic subject per se as there was no Northern Epirus as a defined geographical area between 1913 and 1921. Northern Epirus is a term which was first very loosely defined in the modern sense in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and was used in the context of Greek-Albanian politics, but it was not a defined ethnographic, geographical or historical region which had any distinct history. It still isn't and both Albanian and Greek historians fully agree on this subject.

This would explain why there is no academic coverage for the history of this area and illustrates why the article is a POV content fork: it exists in order to demonstrate that such a region both existed and had a defined history and boundaries a century ago. It is not different to an article with the title History of Transnistria from 1913 to 1921 or an article about any irredentist claim which uses the geographical name of the claim about past history. Nishjan (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is not a content fork, and covers a notable topic in far greater detail than the articles it supposedly forks. It is also far more useful for readers to have the material in a single article that scattered across a large number of article. The arguments about the quality of some of the sources are specious, as that is not a reason for deletion. The dates of coverage (1913-1921) are not arbitrary, but historically grounded, as 1913 marks the beginning of the Northern Epirus question as a result of the Balkan Wars, and 1921 is the year the region was definitively awarded to Albania and hence represents a sense of closure. Lastly, considering that the topic is controversial with some editors, I'm wondering if there is an element of WP:JDL involved in the nomination. Khirurg (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sections of this article aren't covered in existing articles? I will change my vote if such a point can be argued for. I voted delete because even if the article was deleted right now, there would be no missing content which isn't discussed in a broad range of different articles. This is the main question which every Delete/Keep should try to answer.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles covers the crucial period of history of Northern Epirus in much greater detail than Northern Epirus does or theoretically could (such a level of detail would not be appropriate for a main article). Splitting off detailed content to dedicated sub-articles is univerally done across wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks originality and adds little to what is already available across related topics. Its chronological scope appears arbitrary and insufficiently justified, raising questions about why certain years were selected while others equally or more relevant were excluded. Several of the sources cited do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability and neutrality, and some of the claims presented are not supported by credible academic research. In fact, certain statements contradict well-established scholarship and present a skewed perspective that is not reflected in the broader, consensus-based literature.Alltan (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the above is correct, or a reason for deletion. "Lacks originality" is an opinion, and not a policy-based criterion for deletion, the dates are not arbitrary (as explained above), and sourcing issues can be fixed and are not a reason for deletion. The article uses a large number of high quality sources, as is immediately apparent to anyone who reads it. Khirurg (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has nothing to do with a so-called content fork as claimed. It is dedicated to an important historical topic and offers further in-depth compared to similar historical ones. The same article is awareded as a featured article in French and Greek wikis because it covers such an important and crucial time period in Balkan history.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is a WP:CFORK as the article's subject and scope are covered and discussed in other articles which are listed in the nomination. The article is a redundant fork (When a content fork occurs by the creation of a pair of pages of the same type (such as two articles, or two templates, or two outlines) on the same subject, it results in two different versions of the same thing, which is unacceptable. The new page in such a pair is called a "redundant content fork".) and POV fork (A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.) as it covers parts which in Northern Epirus are covered differently. Side comment: All territorial claims have been settled since the Balkan Wars. The area was not definitely awarded to Albania in 1921.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not a fork, because it discusses the topic in much greater detail than Northern Epirus or any other articles. When a topic reaches a certain size, splitting off content to smaller articles that cover specific periods is universal. There are countless such situations across history articles, e.g. with Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II or Byzantine Empire and Byzantium under the Isaurians . Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the term "Northern Epirus" has been variably defined, it was actively used in political, military, and diplomatic discourse between 1913 and 1921, making this period both historically grounded and suitable for focused treatment. Rather than stretching across decades of vague relevance, the article confines itself to a time when Northern Epirus was the subject of sustained political and military contestation. As such, this framing offers readers a coherent and manageable scope. Presenting the topic as a distinct historical phase adds encyclopedic value, particularly given its long-term relevance to Greek-Albanian relations. While concerns about POV pushing have been raised, they remain vague and unsubstantiated in this context. And even if bias were present, be bold and improve it. W:NPOV is a standard for improving content, not a justification for erasing notable, well-defined topics. Azor (talk). 23:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article covers a historically significant phase in the broader topic of Northern Epirus, namely 1913–1921. This period includes the aftermath of the Balkan Wars; the short-lived Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus; shifts in control between Greece and Albania; and efforts to settle the region's status via the Protocols of Florence and Corfu, as well as other international negotiations. The article's chronological focus adds value by presenting a self-contained series of events not cohesively treated elsewhere. This is an acceptable case of content forking, splitting off a well-defined subtopic that warrants standalone coverage. Furthermore, the parent article Northern Epirus exceeds 100 KB of wikitext, which supports splitting out detailed coverage of this period. While related articles—such as Northern Epirus, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, Protocol of Corfu, and Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence—touch on aspects of this history, none provide a continuous account of the 1913–1921 developments. Concerns over neutrality are better addressed through improvement than deletion, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the old sources being used, this article is just a copy-paste of parts of various other articles, which have been listed above. For instance, the "Historiography and legacy of the autonomist movement" section is a verbatim copy of older versions of the "Legacy" sections of Protocol of Corfu and Northern Epirus. Large parts of the article are sourced to nationalistic or outdated sources such as Ruches, Miller, Kondis and Stickney. For example, the legacy section is sourced to early 1990s sources and says that the autonomy question is alive and an important part of the Greece-Albania relations. Instead, if you check Northern Epirus, you will see that both Greece and Albania consider the issue as closed 3 decades ago. Many sentences have grammar or clarity issues due to GoogleTranslate usage; some for example start in the past sentence and end in the present while talking about past events. If kept, the article will need to be rewritten almost entirely, as it has huge issues with sourcing, POV, factual accuracy and grammar. Per WP:POVFORK and WP:TNT, it should be deleted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, no academic RS treats this time period as separate or "special" from the history of "Northern Epirus". Not only the chosen period is arbitrary, but the events of that period are arbitrarily chosen. Some important stuff is missing, some irrelevant stuff is there. For example, the article talks a lot about how much Greeks wanted the region, but nowhere are mentioned the numerous massacres, famines and village burnings committied by the Greek army and its militants against local Albanians and Aromanians. The "Epirus in the Balkan Wars" section, made of three subsections, fails to say a word about the Albanians who had been fighting for years to make the area part of an independent Albania. Instead, it just says that Essad Pasha and some tribal leaders wanted to remain part of the Ottoman Empire. The article says, sourced to Ruches, that all Orthodox Christians in the area spoke Greek. This is nonsense, and one can easily find many RS of recent times saying that most Orthodox Christians there did not speak Greek and were not Greeks. There are many such issues in every part of the article. This is just a mixture of arbitrarily chosen events instead of a RS-based structuring of the article. It is a fringe Greek nationalist talking point, avoiding some aspects of history, changing others, mentioning only what fits the POV. What is the point of keeping an article which needs a nearly complete rewrite while its topics are covered in other articles? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A classic example of a small paragraph having several issues: "In the region, the opposition between Muslim and Christian populations was a long-standing and historically entrenched phenomenon. In September 1906, Muslim nationalists assassinated the Orthodox Metropolitan Photios of Korytsá, accusing him of being an agent of Panhellenism.[4] This act resulted in heightened tensions between communities, with even Albanian Christian nationalists in the diaspora not immune to its effects.[5] In this context, the support of Orthodox Epirotes for an Albanian government led exclusively by Muslim leaders (who were in opposition to each other) was far from unanimous in 1914."
This has several issues. One, the conflict at the time was not only Muslim vs Christian, but also Christian Albanian vs Christian Greek. Most of the activists of the Albanian National Awakening in the region were Orthodox Albanians, but the article only makes it look like the conflict was between Muslims and Christians. Second, among all incidents, it chooses to mention a single one, the murder of Photios and makes it look like the Orthodox did not trust the government of Albania because of Photios's murder. The sources don't make that connection. Neither was Photios' murder the only incident, nor was it the most consequential. Third, the wording gives the impression that the murder of Photios created tensions only between Muslims and Christians, but the source tells a more nuanced version. It says that "The rejection, then the instrumentalization of the murder by Orthodox Albanians at a time when the aim was to dissociate Orthodoxy and Hellenism, by forging an Albanian expression of Orthodoxy and moving towards the creation of an Albanian Orthodox Church, demonstrates this." Many Orthodox Albanians supported or did not oppose the murder, as Photios was seen as an anti-Albanian figure. The story of the background and early stages of the NE conflict is much more complex, and much better elaborated on in other articles. This article from the beginning to the end has such issues and it would need to be rewritten if kept. A few weeks ago I worked a lot to bring Northern Epirus to the standards, this one needs way more work. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep I've seen this discussion a while ago; I initially thought I wouldn't participate, since, despite my general focus on Balkan history, this topic and period is not within my main interests and expertise and I don't have strong opinion about it, but I thought I might give my two cents for what is worth, having also read parts of the responses above. It's been a while now that I try to approach things in WP in a neutral manner so, indeed, the topic is nuanced and complex and I don't deny that the existance of issues, such as the case provided above. For example, User:Ktrimi made an effort above to provide an example of the nuanced historical reality of the era. They closed by saying that if the article were to be kept, it would require work to be brought to higher standards. As far as I am concerned, I don't necessarily see this as negative. In short, if we compare: maintain with rework or complete erasure, I believe that objectively the former can be more beneficial. Ideally, the older editors who have a deep knowlegde of the era would work on gradually finding some natural middle ground. There wouldn't be any hurry for that and also the page, I belive, is very low-visibility anyway. Nevertheless, I do think that there still might be merit to the topic and the history of the era, worth keeping, and the page also follows the typical WP format of article "X" and article "History of X", which could justify its existence. Piccco (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if we compare: maintain with rework or complete erasure There would be no erasure, as the content is already covered in other articles.
Ideally, the older editors who have a deep knowlegde of the era would work on gradually finding some natural middle ground Ideally yes, but in practice no. Northern Epirus was in a crappy state for almost 2 decades until a few weeks ago, when I took the intitiative and worked a lot to bring it to the needed standards. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not beneficial to keep the article because it is a WP:POVFORK of info already covered in a neutral way in other articles. It also has a POV title, because an entity called "Northern Epirus" existed only in 1914. The rest is the history of territories of southern Albania claimed by Greece after it annexed from the Ottoman Empire the southern territories of the region it called "Epirus" in line of its classicizing policy. This article, with such title and arbitrary selection of the time span is not neutral for Wikipedia. There is no reliable source that describes such a subject as the "History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921", something invented by an editor in another wiki, and provided here in en.wiki as a translation. If editors don't provide RS that dedicate a chapter or at least a paragraph to the alleged subject of "History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921", it constitutes an original research POV topic that can not have its own Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Article inclusion criteria. – Βατο (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonidas Kormalis

[edit]
Leonidas Kormalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Olympian with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. I suggest a redirect to Greece at the 1960 Summer Olympics. Svartner (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Greece&oldid=1294961268"