Talk:Hierotheos Vlachos

Prod
Relative to the deletion proposal, it deals with one of the five or so most well-known bishops in Greece (and outside of that country). I note that articles relating to Greek clergy tend to get deleted, e.g. on notability grounds, without corresponding input of greater significance. (It might be useful for this to be quantitively assessed in relation to the use of categories and by other criteria). There seems to be a collective bias operating - the last article I created on a figure with whom I am out of sympathy and have no wish to advocate his cause, but whose influence can be directly traced in faculties and in a multitude of parishes in Greece (literature distributed), was deleted for this reason. This is not the case in this instance of a hierarchically more eminent personage 10 January 2012Clive sweeting (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Clive Sweeting

Reliable source tag
Dear Novaseminary, The magazine Pemptousia IS NOT an unreliabble Source, as it is one of the largest PRINTED Theology Magazines in Greece. Please do not write about things you probably have no idea about. Thank you.2.216.16.104 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversion
Dear Novaseminary, may I revert the article, or will I still be proposed for a ban, as you said ? Thank you, for your time and effort. Romanity1 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP Refimprove tag
Please, these sources are secondary and reliable. If you do not give me reason enough I will remove the tags. Please write here if you think they are unreliable and why this is. The article might be small but the sources are good. You cannot put these tags without reason.Romanity1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These existing sources appear to be ”author notes” on websites. Even if these meet WP:RS (and there is some doubt because, though the magazine, for example, might be an RS, it is not clear where this note came from and whether it underwent the same editorial verification as the magazine itself), they probably would not be enoigh to pass WP:BIO. The tag should not be viewed as a personal affront to you or the article's subject. Rather it is just a call for other editors to add good sources to this article. Rather than using IP addresses to try to remove it, why not direct your effort to finding a third-party book or news article about him and add it as a source for a fact already there, or better, to support a new fact? As I did at Orthodox psychotherapy, I probably would have already tracked down and added several sources and removed the tag myself (or sent the article to WP:AFD) had I not had to waste time on this nonsense. Novaseminary (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not "use IP addresses" to remove it. At first I only had an IP addressing and then I registered in. Are you trying to create impressions? Please keep it decent. You are already spending enough time on this article, if you thought it is nonsense there are probably others, but it seems you are quite interested in these."The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, " and this person has. So this article covers notability. I take off these tags in the next 24 hours if you do not produce additional arguments, thank you. Romanity1 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are talking about notability, it seems. But there is no notability tag on the article. I'm not questioning his notability; I think sufficient sources are out there to be had. Good gracious, all the tag means is that the article needs more and better sourcing. It does. You're not going to challenge the stub tags next, are you? Again, I will quite hapily remove the tag once I or somebody else (or God forbid, you) adds some better sources. No big deal. We are arguing over a tag neither of us wants the article to contain. I just think it needs to stay until improved (which is what I would prefer). Novaseminary (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)