Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul J Moss

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 of the debate was Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul_J_Moss

• Reason why the page should be deleted Bongos 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be vanity? Paul J Moss is not notable as far as I can tell. Googling turned up only a few bizarre hits: :http://www.astronomy.net.nz/frame19.htm (Scroll down that particular page!)

'Googling' turns up 6 million on some days and 12 million on others. The subject has been in #1 response for 5 out of 6 years, and many of the top 10 for many of those years. FACT. moza 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

removed my single vote. If discussion doesn't take place here then how can the voting be valid, almost nil discussion took place elsewhere, and the cut and pasters have ripped this page apart so many times, it doesn't make sense, it's not the truth, it has serious ommisions, and it certainly doesnt have any balance. The history of this page shows blatant ignorance of the facts, superficiality on a broad scale, meanspiritedness that I knew existed but found hard to believe every other time I encountered it. The philosphy here is said to be construction, so if the article doesn't fit the rules, why not alter it, build a new one, get the known facts, be vigilant against how things appear on the surface, be all that a wikipedian can be. I have witnessed crowd behaviour here, emotion and assumption, hardly any reality, its a good learning zone about ourselves, at least I contributed to exposing that aspect to the clear minded. moza moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - owning a few domain names, sticking your name in a huge font on a couple of websites to fool google and taking a few pictures of the sky isn't really a big mark of notability, however worthwhile the last occupation is. It's a vanity article too - if it weren't for a humungous amount of edits by the article's subject, the article wouldn't exist. That said, I'm loathe to enourage or endorse the proposer of the AfD since he's got some ulterior motives regarding the article subject --Aim Here 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

the subject owns many domain names and they have extremely useful content, and are linked to by many great worldwide institutions. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above: not notable; fails WP:BIO. Google rank in a few arcane sujects does not confer notability, especially when you put your name and list your websites (along with a number of keywords) everywhere you can. bcasterline^talk 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

fabrication to support your POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Um, what? Xtra is the largest ISP in New Zealand! I'm on dial up so my IP is dynamic. Are you going to post every Xtra IP address as proof of a conspiracy? Anyhoo, I didn't mean to cause offense, it's just that your entry seems to violate the terms and spirit of Wiki. If you've done something notable, tell the world about it, and I'll withdraw my delete vote. Oh and gotta love Google Cache... here's that page as it was _before_ you hastily edited out all the questionable content (minus pics for speed): http://www.geocities.com/eastriverqueen/frame19.htm

its illegal to copy and hack other peoples websites, and bad taste to mis use the hacked version to promote your own POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages"
• Delete. Article does not establish notability as an astronomer. A Google search for "Paul Moss" astronomy comes up with 702 hits with few verifiable sources [1]. A similar search on Google books came up empty. A search for "Paul Moss" came up with a number of names but none that was immediately associated with this guy. A Google Scholar credit for "Paul Moss" astronomy came up with two entries [2]. In short, he doesn't seem notable enough as yet as an astronomer nor is there any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

this user used the previously unpublished search name.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
• Keep — please note that the nominator Bongos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a new user with a first contribution to delete this article (and the second to badly modify the Aurora summary page). --William Allen Simpson 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Obvious vanity; Nowhere near notable enough for inclusion; Self-created and maintained entry. Delete. 217.96.105.6 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Duplicate Page of Paul x Moss has just been created by User:Mozasaur, this should be included in the deleteion. or perhaps deleted earlier. - SimonLyall 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

the pages have either been deleted or put in process by the author.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity, not noteable etc. Even if the nomination was in bad faith the article still doesn't appear to meet criteria. The guy who is vandalizing the astronomy stuff should see the quote on my user page btw. - SimonLyall 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Aim Here. -- Avenue 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)*Delete — Wouldn't even satisfy the average professor test. I think it's great what he's doing, but it's just not all that notable. Sorry. :) — RJH 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

how about writing an article to serve the same function? moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. 68.87.71.183 06:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: These articles are nothing but vanity, no matter how you look at it. 210.55.80.151 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Now back to adding stuff to Wikipedia... Ziggurat 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

EVERY web page promotes itself. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also violates WP:ASR. Stifle 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldnt be, but when POV enters then it becomes one, moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Has done notable things in the field of astronomy. excuse me other people have URL's in this so why cant I? paul wrote the entire site Bongos linked, as well as many other related ones such as http://www.rakiuraimages.com/ . please dont edit my post again or things will get nasty 203.97.108.242 08:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

yes i wondered how that can be allowed as well, the rules are used when it suits, and ignored when it suits, crowd behaviour. (i'd prefer to not see the threats though.)moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

!!! KEEP !!! Paul has some amazing photo's that have been recognised internationally, and the sharing of pictures between sites is mutual. Paul also has some very valid and interesting views, and i think deletion would be a big mistake and a big loss of content. Get a clue Bongos.  (original by 219.89.179.18)

yes i brought this back and no its not mine, check the ip. it was deleted by user 72.242.25.5 in his grand anonymous cleanup. I try and sign my work, proudly and with ID. moza 11:21, 3 March 2006 (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.