Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demetrios Tzerpos


 * 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. this is a classic cas eof something that comes back immediately someone can find some suitable sources but at the moment we don't seem to have enough sources to pass GNG and even V on some of the claims Spartaz Humbug! 09:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Demetrios Tzerpos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability of this Greek theologian. This article was recently deleted via an expired prod and recreated at another editors request. I do not believe that the subject passes WP:PROF because per this site he is an assistant professor, WP:PROF requires the appointment of Distinguished Professor. I understand that there may be sources in Greek that could confer notability, if these are added to the article I will happily withdraw my nomination. J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, it is a BLP without any references. Delete unless some are added, and I'll be glad to revisit my position at that time. Lady  of  Shalott  20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * References have now been added. JASpencer (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've struck my delete, but am not yet convinced of notability. Not all assistant professors are notable. I am uncertain at this point if his publications are enough. Lady  of  Shalott  17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Zero cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. http://www.ecclesia.gr/English/holysynod/committees/worship/worship.htm confirms his position as Protopresbyter; I'm not sure how notable this rank is. His faculty page lists a number of books and publications. I think that Google Scholar might be a bit weak where Greek theological papers are concerned. But without understanding Greek I'm having trouble reaching a firm position on this one. Pburka (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Holding a chair in a major university ought to be enough to confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I followed the "Find Sources" link on his name in Greek and used Google translate. This produced 77 Ghits, some describing him as "associate professor".  He appears to have become a lecturer in 2002 and been promoted in 2007.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Peterkingiron:  Yes, WP:PROF #5 is clear that named chairs do demonstrate notability, I don't think anybody is questioning that.  The issue is, nobody has stated that he does, no source presented in any language has stated that he does. "Associate professor" is a fair stretch from "The So-and-So Chair in SomeTopic" --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  19:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's understandable that Greek can be hard to understand on the English Wikipedia, but he would pass if he were an Anglican or a Catholic scholar due to the fact that there would be some references in English. JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got nothing against sources in Greek, if you got 'em. My main hobby here at Wikipedia is sourcing articles, and many unsourced BLPs end up relying on non-English sources.  There's no question that it's *harder* for me to find those sources, but they're equally valid from a policy point of view to English ones. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peterkingiron. CPerked (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, there has been no evidence that he holds a chair at any university. The sources that have been added to the article merely show that he exists but offer no coverage and prove no notability. J04n(talk page) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Peterkingiron's comment mystifies me. All we've seen is that he is either an assistant or associate professor, not that he holds any sort of chair. Lady  of  Shalott  17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this as well, there is no WP:V evidence that this assistant professor holds or has ever held a named faculty chair. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Faculty list already supplied on project pageClive Sweeting
 * I don't know what you mean by this. What "faculty list"? Lady  of  Shalott  17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article in its present state does not present any evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete At least the article is, as written, verifiable now, but (as per David Eppstein), doesn't meet WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. It appears from what I can see that Peterkingiron and CPerked's rationales arguing for notability are based on an objectively false assumption. The gentleman's verifiable faculty page at the university lists him as an associate professor, the chance that he has a named chair without it being listed there is enormously small. Ref 1 is primary, ref 2 and 3 are passing incidental coverage, his clerical position (Protopresbyter) does come near conferring "inherent notability." I can't find a policy basis, based on what's in the article or the sources, to argue for anything but delete. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.