G. F. Zaimis: Untenable in its current state, and nominating on the basis that even if substantive sources existed, it is too advertorial to remain.  Google searches pull up little except self-published sites.  National Book Critics Circle ( https://www.bookcritics.org/2013/11/25/g-f-zaimis-picks-six-poets/ ) does not confer notability or provide substance re her biography/life Reviews on the back of her book, cited throughout the article (from self-hosted pdfs on Wix sites) are arguably the product of advance copies and are ultimately blurbs that do not confer notability on the subject as a writer of prominence Events at the Freud Museum, Athens Centre may indicate prominence but are promotions for speaking events and still do not provide biographical substance Even if notability were shown, the article is arrogantly editorial.  No source here can assert that her "grammatology recalls Derrida's understanding of the word".  The removal of this fluff with actual substantive sources (if there are any) would necessitate a complete rewrite.  ‒ overthrows 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists ,  and Authors .  ‒ overthrows 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Greece , New York ,  and South Carolina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It's so over the top it reads like a hoax at first, and seems like a good candidate for WP:TNT .  The fact that it has been written almost entirely by many SPAs makes one wonder if it's UPE or an AUTOBIO.  Will ! vote later after examining the sourcing, however if it is kept it would make sense to trim it back to a stub until it could be crafted in a more encyclopedic manner.  Netherzone ( talk ) 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The vast majority of the sourcing simply links to other wikipedia articles, or to websites that don't mention her at all, or are "sourced" to her own writings, website or youtube videos.  A few others seem to be listings of events - primary sources - but not to biographical or critical analysis of her work.  With so much refbombing, it's hard to tell what is there, so WP:TNT seems like the proper route.  It may-or-may-not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR as it's hard to tell with so much cite kill .  I'm also about 90% sure it's either WP:COI , WP:UPE or an WP:AUTOBIO based on the sheer number of SPA editors and non-neutral tone.  I am finding zero hits on Google Scholar and Scopus, therefore fails WP:NPROF , and not finding anything to support that she's a notable photographer.  Delete per WP:TNT .  Netherzone ( talk ) 22:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Visual arts , Architecture ,  and Photography .  Netherzone ( talk ) 22:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete = They lost me at the opening sentence of "polymath, thought leader ... friend of philosophy" sourced to this person's own web site on wix.com.  I also checked the last two sources, neither of which mention this person's name.  Lacks independent sources and significant coverage.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 23:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - could only find brief mentions here [1] [2] , neither of which support notability.  Shapeyness ( talk ) 16:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the references for the article do not establish notability.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete