Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stylianos Vlasopoulos


 * 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Stylianos Vlasopoulos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not mean meet the criteria of WP:BIO. No Google hits, no reliable sources. The author is  and also featured himself in the other Vlassopoulos article [please note: Link not working due to deletion of linked article], therefore has a WP:COI. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak deleteThis is a horrible Google automatic translation from the Greek Wikipedia article, but editing would fix the howlers and odd phrasing generated by the computer translation. The nominator's objection to the article is invalid if the statements in the article can be verified, since a person who did what he is said to have done might would generally be accepted as satisfying WP:BIO.  The article says he was "judge of the Supreme Court." In some locations (New York State), that is the lowest trial level, in which criminal cases are initially heard, and being such a judge would not establish notability. If it were the highest appeal court of a nation, it would be a reasonable basis for notability. It is not proved by any reference other than a link to other Wikipedias, and in the original Greek Wiki, there are just several refs listed at the end with no inline cites to make verification feasible. It says he was a "delegate of the Ionian Academy during the French occupation." If that were a government position comparable to a US state legislature or higher, then he would be presumed notable. Ionian Academy is about an academic institution, and says it was only established in 1824, two years after Vlasopoulos is said to have died. A claim that he was on the governing council of a university would not in any automatic way show notability, even if the dates meshed. I agree with comments (Google translated ) in Greek on the discussion page of the article in the Greek 'pedia: "The sources must be more specific. Files and personal files are not acceptable as sources, unless they are widely published, so we have the source to report the post and not only the. - Miria 14:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)." Google books has no results under the name as transliterated here, nor in the Greek spelling from that Wikpedia, "Στυλιανός Βλασόπουλος."  That raises a major red flag. Edison (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Edison but you don't have to tell me The nominator's objection to the article is invalid if the statements in the article can be verified. Everyone on Wikipedia knows that. Isn't this what it is all about? WP:RS and WP:V are the policies that make this place reliable and respectable. I or you can make any statement we want about grandpa or anyone else for that matter. But if we don't have any WP:RS there is no WP:V and no notability. In short, Wikipedia trades in high level info using high-standard sources. Don't tell me we are anything close to these standards in this bio. Have you also seen the other article about the family? It is covered by genealogical trees without anything resembling a reliable source. It is also at AfD and not by me. I also don't understand your weak delete in the absence of any reliable, verifiable source to verify these assertions. Except if you are still hoping they will or can be found. But I do agree with you on the big red flag of Google getting no hits for the article. To be more succinct: Everyone likes to tell stories of grandeur about their family. That doesn't mean that they can have an article in Wikipedia. If these tales cannot be verified they only belong in the family album, not in Wikipedia. So no "weak delete"s here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not make a drive-by nomination and then attack anyone who does not fully agree with you. Your nomination was vague, cryptic and misspelled or garbled. Your nomination did not indicate how it failed with respect to WP:BIO: if it was lacking a claim of notability, or if it was lacking verification of a suitable claim. You did not indicate that being "a justice on the supreme court" would have satisfied you if it were verified. You had no comment about the notability of other claims. If no RS are presented, I expect the nominator to search for them before nominating, and to indicate where he searched unsuccessfully for RS. Did you? If you can read Greek, you are far better set up to check for sources than I am. If he had been verifiably a noted author, academic, and/or justice on a nation's highest court, it would have a 'keep. So I felt, and feel, that only a weak delete is suitable. Edison (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah the misspelling. Sorry about that. I will fix it. I created three new articles last week and I was busy fixing them, at the same time as I was fighting vandalism. So being busy dropped the quality of my nom rationale, let alone the spelling. Granted. On the other hand, like I told you, I did Google the name and nothing came up, as you also mentioned. I should have mentioned that, but anyone can press the Google sources buttons on this nom in the "Find sources" line, and find out what I already knew. This is why I became complacent regarding Google. Because the buttons are here for everyone to verify. If the Google buttons worked for this person someone would have said so. Finally your question about being a Supreme Court judge, if that would be satisfactory. I didn't think about that, because the complete lack of sources told me that this claim would not be verifiable anyway. Therefore I will not deal in hypotheticals. If I don't see any sources or Google can't find them for me, that's too bad. Case closed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  22:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please specify where I attacked you? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And I take exception to you calling my nom drive-by. I thought you being an experienced editor and admin would show more respect to another experienced editor and show more good faith. Maybe I was a bit careless, I don't do this stuff often, but it was done in good faith and based on solid principles. If the presentation was flawed so be it. But this negativity is completely uncalled for. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally by saying "no weak keep"s here, I spoke for myself. I would not presume to speak for you or anyone else. I respect your opinion and I know that you reached it after due deliberation. If you thought that I was criticising your !vote by making this comment, I can assure you that definitely I was not and I am sorry if you took it otherwise. In fact I think that your !vote was completely consistent with your criteria and I respect both your criteria and your conclusion. My criteria are different and I reached a different conclusion from yours. That's all. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep This is a prime example of why Google Translate should not be used to create articles. For one thing, while the name as stated gives no Google hits,, , and  all do - not many, not ideal (and in the last case, one has to search through a number of clearly irrelevant hits), but enough to verify a couple of small points (I've added relevant citations to the article). Given the number of languages relevant reliable sources are likely to be in (Greek, Italian, French and English, at least) and the likely age of many of them, this is going to be difficult to source properly but, given time and work, it should certainly be possible. PWilkinson (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Biagio Colonna" is not necessarily Vlassopoulos. The Italian book states Vlassopoulos as the publisher and Colonna as the writer. La Difesa della chiesa greca ultimamente assalita da Comenido Reaixtei, scritta da Biaggio Colonna... (Publicata da Stelio Vlassopulo.). Scritta da Biaggio Colonna in Italian means "written by Biaggio Colonna" Publicata da Stelio Vlassopulo means "Published by Stelio Vlassopulo" Yet you wrote in the article that Stelio Vlassopulo wrote under the pseudonym of "Biaggio Colonna". This is analysing a primary source, the book, and reaching your own conclusions. I don't have to explain hopefully that this is original research. Actually this is worse than that. It is analysing a primary source and reaching a different conclusion from that which the primary source clearly states. The source calls Colonna the writer and you refer to him as a pseudonym of Vlassopoulos. Is this how we write articles in this place? By sheer imagination? Your citations are also primary sources and assert no notability of the works cited. In fact only the titles exist and nothing else. You cannot base notability on these citations. I hope that we won't have to resort to original research, imagination, and synthesis of scant primary sources to save the article. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 02:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dr. K. It is inappropriate synthesis and original research to conflate an author and a publisher. But the 1993 book which shows in book search by Stamatopolous calls him a "scholar and historian," which is some indication of notability. Edison (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read what I said as asserting that I had established notability, my apologies - I certainly did not intend to, as I clearly had not. The points verified by the sources I added certainly do not establish notability by themselves (and wouldn't even if the sources weren't primary) - though I think that they do make it far more likely that other sources, on the Google lists and elsewhere, will do so, if and when found. The pseudonymity claim was my carelessness, and was not intended to be backed by any of the sources I added. I had started by looking for and testing the search terms I have given above, then after finding the Index entry, went as I thought to tidy up the mention of Biagio Colonna (and in particular get the name correct) and quite likely badly misinterpreted it. I found and added the link to the Google books entry for La difesa della chiesa greca just before I posted the article - it was late at night, my time, but I should have realised that it at least apparently contradicted the claim and rewritten that bit again. In excuse, my interpretation had been influenced by a couple of the sources on the lists (this, which I certainly realise is not unambiguous enough given the bibliographic information, and at least one other) - when I get the time (which won't be in the next 24 hours but should be well before this discussion closes), I will recheck these and amend the article. PWilkinson (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is no longer a automatic translation (I agree to delete these on sight). The individual was a Senator, and as such meets WP:POLITICIAN. Perhaps another spelling for the name should be found, but I am not sure which one. Vlassopoulos? Vlassopulos? Vlassopulo? Place Clichy (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And where exactly is the reliable citation that he was a senator? Or a Governor of Lefkada? Or anything else? Are we now going to go by uncited, unverifiable claims? In this case we might as well delete our deletion policy. Anyone with any unverifiable claim can now be supported, according to your logic, to have an article on the English Wikipedia. In fact precisely because the author of this article seems to have a COI as regards the article of his apparent great-great...-grandfather, as you also know, we must have heavy-duty citations for such extraordinary claims per WP:REDFLAG. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found no evidence either way on his being a senator (a pity, as this would certainly fulfil WP:POLITICIAN#1), though as this collection of constitutional documents shows, he was a signatory of the 1803 constitution of the Septinsular Republic. On the connection with Lefkada, this book by Pappas (which certainly looks to me like a reliable source) refers to "the Septinsular civil authority of Lefkas, prytanis (rector) Stylianos Vlassopoulos". Judging by the 1803 constitution (particularly clause 126), the "prytanis" would effectively have been the central government's main representative on Lefkada - so "governor" is a possible translation, though quite likely not the best one. Unfortunately, I'm only in a position to see snippets - could someone with access to a good library please check and amend the article appropriately? This is a particular problem as, while the book looks as if it probably contains more information on Stylianos Vlassopoulos than I have been able to see, it may actually very well disconfirm most of the paragraph on Lefkada - it looks highly likely that the article creator has confused Stylianos Vlassopoulos with Joannes (or Giovanni or Ivan) Vlassopoulos, the Russian consul at Preveza at the time. It would also be good to find out one way or another whether this is the translation of Vlassopoulos's Saggio de statistica dell' Isola di Corfu mentioned here by Stamatopoulos - it seems to be cited quite frequently. (And Stamatopoulos's book is again one I have frustratingly only been able to see in Google snippets). PWilkinson (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Comment Article may not meet notability guidelines, but its lead sentence connects to an article which is up for aFd. Tinton5 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And now gone, as is my link showing the edit by the apparent COI editor to the now deleted article. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 02:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Keep I'll admit to some uncertainty about the governance of Greece/Italy during that time period. However, from what I can tell, the offices he held were equivalent to being a legislator or judge at the sub-national level (though which nation it was "sub-" to seems to have changed from Venice to France to Ottoman & Russia to France (again) to Britain during his lifetime - I'm not sure which one(s) would apply) and thereby passes WP:POLITICIAN.  Clarity about when he held office and a link to the articles for the actual governments he held office under (Corfu Province, Septinsular Republic, United States of the Ionian Islands, etc.) would help immensely. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Actually, better sourcing would be great. I guess there's no way to know if he's notable if we can't even tell what he did, can we?  I'd like to know where the original author got the information to start with, at least.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is not temporary, if the person was notable at the time of living, then still notable for wikipedia. From what I can read this individual was definately notable at the time. Unless there would be any hoax claims, article should not be deleted. --Soman (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment We are still trying to find out the notability of this individual and so far we have scant evidence by a few primary sources that he may have written a book and in another that his signature appears on the constitution of the Septinsular republic and that he is referred to as rector. These primary sources are interpreted by us to be important, which is original research, yet there is no secondary or tertiary source attesting to any significance of the scant evidence which exists. Every other claim made in the article about Ali Pasa and saving the Greeks of Kefalonia etc. is sompletely unverified. How are we going to write an article on the person then? Are we going to say that "his signature appeared on the constitution of the Septinsular republic" without an independent scholar having said that? And "He is referred to as rector in some book"? Are we going to be based on personal evidence to interpret literally one-word primary document evidence to write an article? Is this our function on Wikipedia? To read one-word entries in some old list attached to some name, (not even supported by a complete sentence), and then write articles about the name appearing on the list? This is a classic example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And even if we do this SYNTH what then? Everything else mentioned in the article will have to go. What we are going to end up with is just a few WP:OR/WP:SYNTH supported sentences and a one-sentence stub of an article. Not a pretty sight. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 14:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD was not transcluded in the daily logs. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was listed for 2 weeks, and then someone botched the relisting process on Oct 17. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  00:30, 30 October 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.