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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Dimitris Xygalatas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is autobiographical and does not meet notability requirements for biographies of people in academia. Notability notices are continually removed by subject and others without discussion. Cited sources are all written by subject. Chuuumus (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A postdoctoral fellow, with no actual authored books, one co-edited book, 5 essays, and a number of translations. Not yet notable. DGG (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was the one who removed the notice on January 19, and I did enter the discussion. There are far les notable people who have their own entries. I am sure this is not the case, but it looks like you are making this personal, Chuuumus.Neologistic (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — Neologistic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete "far less notable people who have their own entries" does not establish notability for this article. The 19 January 2009 discussion did not establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) -- the notice was simply removed without any further evidence from reliable, independent secondary sources (as it was again by Neocultural (talk) this morning). My AfD nomination based on those criteria. Chuuumus (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apart from an academic, subject is a very notable translator. His translated books and edited volume are used as textbooks in Greek universities and have been reviewed by some of the most reliable Greek newspapers. I will add references as soon as I have the time.GreekTiger (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — GreekTiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I was the one who removed this notice for the second time. Dr. Xygalatas is an expert in the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). He is arguably one of the foremost authorities in the anthropology of fire-walking. I am currently an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and the subject gives "invited" lectures in North America and Europe as an authority on both fire-walking and CSR. He has translated and published some of the world's leading theorists in translation, as well, as published in peer reviewed journals and edited books. As a member of the American Academy of Religion, the North American Association for the Study of Religion, and the American Anthropological Association, I can confirm that the subject is an authority in his field, widely publishes, presents invited papers at major research universities and conferences, and holds a major position at a research one institution. He is also, a founding member of the leading branch of research, The International Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion. The person who is making the request to have this page removed sounds almost personal?? Exactly who has the authority to say what a "reliable, independent secondary source is"? neocultural(talk)18:45, 2, March 2009 (UTC) — Neocultural (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's possible for a postdoc to be notable for his academic achievements, but it's very unusual. I can find no evidence (in the form of highly cited papers, popular press concerning his research, etc) that his work has made the impact required to satisfy WP:PROF #1, nor that he passes any other WP:PROF criterion. I am also troubled by the parade of single-purpose accounts already evident in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This subject fulfills rule #1, 4, and 7 under the terms of WP: PROF. It should be noted that postdoctoral positions in the humanities and social sciences are classified quite differently than postdocs in the natural sciences. Postdocs in the humanities and social sciences are engaged in their own highly "original" research (unlike say Biology where postdocs usually work in another researcher's lab on an existing project). And this subject has generated via ethnography, film (ethno-documentary), and experimental evidence a highly regarded collection of research/data with an original theory to explain these forms of action. It seems to me a waste of time that people are judging this subject when they are from outside his discipline and are unequipped to classify Dr. Xygalatas' research in a proper context. I would also like to state that he might qualify for a WP: Artist, since he is one of the few (if any) filmmakers/documentarians to film "firewalkers" in Greece and Spain. Neocultural (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not make two keep comments in a single AfD. I have struck out your second one and fixed the other damage you made to the comments here in adding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe subject might fulfill rules #2 and 6 as well. He has received a Ted and Elaine Athanassiades Research Fellowship in Hellenic Studies at Princeton, which is one of the most prestigious postdoc positions in Hellenic Studies. Furthermore, he is an elected member of the executive committee of the IACSR, which is the most important academic association in the the area of cognition and religion. P.S. Eppstein, I am not trying to get two votes here, just elaborating. You can strike out one of my "keep" if you wish. GreekTiger (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Just to add to the points already made by DGG and David Eppstein, the subject’s citation impact is essentially zero at the moment.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Holding a postdoctoral fellowship, even a distinguished one, is not necessarily or even usually notable. A postdoctoral fellow can be notable, but they have to have done something significant. Any presumption of notability that one applies to full professors at major universities does not apply at lower ranks, and there are several lower ranks than that until one gets to him. Being the president of a major national or international professional association is notable, being just a member of the executive committee is not. We must judge by the record for WP PROF and by the outside substantial references to the work for WP BIO. As for PROF, he has not authored a single book. he has written no more that 4 or 5 journal articles or book chapters. He has translated a number of standard English books into Greek. A person can be notable primarily as a translator, but except for translators of major creative literature, where the role of the translator is itself creative, it would take really strong evidence & I see none. As for being an authority in a speciality, I see at the most that he is a specialist in firewalking in some European cultures--not even in firewalking as a world-wide phenomenon, let alone anthropology of religion generally. As for the sort of substantial third party references that would satisfy WP:BIO, I see none of them. What I do so is that his friends think well of him, but we do not base the encyclopedia upon personal testimonials. As for academic testimonials, I wouldn't think much of one which said merely "take my word for it". When he has authored several well reviewed books and has a major academic tenured position, then he might be notable. DGG (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet fascism at its best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neocultural (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reminded to read our civility policy, in which you did not follow. Don't throw the F-word around again. MuZemike 04:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete agree with the assessment of Eric Yurken, DGG & David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has all been said by Eric, DGG and David. There's no notability, despite the rantings of some SPAs. --Crusio (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If DGG can't find notability for this fellow, it ain't out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (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.