Deletion of Stylianos Vlasopoulos

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  and . 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 / supported sentences and a one-sentence stub of an article. Not a pretty sight
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: This 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 .   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 ." 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The article is no longer a automatic translation (I agree to delete these on sight). The individual was a Senator, and as such meets . Perhaps another spelling for the name should be found, but I am not sure which one. Vlassopoulos? Vlassopulos? Vlassopulo
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)