Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul JJ Payack

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 6 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

[edit] Paul JJ Payack

Vanity page, not notable. All substantive edits from the same anonymous IP address as other pages related to Payack: WordClock, Global Language Monitor, etc. Payack's main activity on Wikipedia appears to be generating pointers to his Web site. The books referenced in the article are all published by vanity presses (iUniverse). Googling "Mythomania Payack" finds only Wikipedia mirrors. Contemporary Authors, which he cites, publishes authors' self-descriptions. DELETE. Macrakis 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup - His link to the Global Language Monitor may be notable, gets some Google hits - but the vanity press bookcruft can go away posthaste. --FCYTravis 10:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Pjjp or delete. -- Hoary 10:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• The author me PJJP who is definitely not anonymous and created a PJJP some time ago has had over 400 works published in such well-known and established pubs as The Paris Review (5 works), Boulevard, New Letters (24 works), etc. I am the creator and president of one of the most respected language sites in the world (yourDictionary.com) which has links to thousands of Academic institutions worldwide (check our board of Advisors for a who's who of the world's linguists); while the C is one of the most respected analytical media tools globally. The BBC interviewed me twice in the last six months, CNN over two dozen times, PBS twice in the last ninety days. The vanity pubs you cite (iUniverse) are merely me collecting my previously published works. BTW, Mythomania, was published in '76 and is out of print, hence the mirrors. Check Bowkers for definitive lists of books in print from the past (I have some dozen between '73 and '87 that are now out of print.) My bio appears in scores of pubs of which the Contemp Authors is one of the most accurate because the author can correct it (but it usually runs 2 years behind reality.) As for the number of words in the English Language: this is applauded by serious linguists who are tired of the games that are played over words; the number of which can never be cited for the reasons you cite. However academics in other disciplines fail to understand how scientists can estimate the number of stars, galaxies and even atomic particles in the Universe, the number of neurons in a human brain, the number of people on the planet, but cannot provide even a rough estimate of the number of words in the language. The estimate is used worldover as a starting point for discussions. If you feel you must delete, then sobeit; I've had my say. PJJP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.128.16.20 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2005 Jun 23

Apparently you were not logged in when you edited the article; that makes your edits anonymous. I did look in the Paris Review--using their search function, I could only find one poem by you, published in 1976--or is Peter Payack also you? You are clearly very successful at public relations and have succeeded in getting your Global Language Monitor quoted by the press. You have also succeeded in getting Google to rank your site well, perhaps partly by the linkspammy links in the Wikipedia which you have inserted: they generally point to articles with very little substantive content. The board of advisors of yourDictionary is impressive, I agree. I still think that, as another contributor says, "If you have to write your own article you're not notable." --Macrakis 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re the "previously published works", I can't find them in a few major library catalogs (Boston Public, Library of Congress, Harvard...) I checked. And on bookfinder.com, all the listings of your books are from the vanity presses, none from the original non-vanity publishers. Interesting.
About yourdictionary.com, you say of it that you are "the creator" (my emphasis); according to the Library of Congress record, it was created by Robert Beard; is that incorrect?
About Contemp Authors, the point is that you quote what it says about your work as though it was an outside resource; but in fact you wrote that quote yourself, which seems a bit like what you're doing here on Wikipedia, adding links to yourself in various places.
About "applauded by serious linguists" — can you document this?--Macrakis 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• usefy If you have to write your own article your not notable--Porturology 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. CDC (talk) 14:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity. --Kevin 18:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.