Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Moseley (second nomination)

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. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Moseley

Does not meet WP:BIO and written by a interested party. Three unaccredited degrees and two books, possibly self-published. A google search for "Ron Moseley" brings less than 700 hits and not all refer to the same person. Also delete the redirect John Moseley and Image: Yeshua.png Arbusto 02:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom DrIdiot 02:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. David D. (Talk) 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete diplomamillcruft. Cyde Weys 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gastrichcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - here we go again!. Clearly notable with his very influencial book (illustrated), particularly in the evangelical end of the church and on Messianic Judaism issues. Very quick search brings up multiple sites recommending this main title. Admitedly largely within the Messianic community but that means is is significant to them, surely that makes it notable as a text for understanding the movement. These edit wars over matters that some seem not to know anything about is beginning to get me down. Or do you all really know a lot on this particular subject area. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  Its not clear whether this author is a notable academic. How many other books have been written in this area? How many citations for his book in a citation index? Google brings up some hits since this writer is marketing his wares. Writing a book is not necessarily notable, if it were every theologian in the world would be in wikipedia. Of course inclusionists would say this is a good thing but that is not the guidelines that have been layed out by WP:BIO. David D. (Talk) 10:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable author and speaker. Logophile 13:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per David D. The article is a resume/CV. Has no claim to fame (virtually all graduate students in any discipline do research with leading academicians).  Cdcon  19:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete apart from a well-padded resume there is virtually no encyclopaedic content here, and no evidence presented that anybody who did not already agree with him has ever rated his opinion. It's not just that "Dr. Ron Mosley" has no doctorates form accredited universities, his books are also not for sale on Amazon, and appear to be published by a company which doesn't even have a website (not that I could find anyway). Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

bought mine on Amazon - what do you mean. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 07:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

An Amazon search for Ron Mosley, Ronald Mosley and other variants yesterday found none of his books. That might have been a glithch, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just use the ISBNs and the show up. Like this. --Calton | Talk 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! So you can buy his 64 page booklet via Amazon. But it's still from a publisher which I can't trace, other than its statement that it features his books, and it's still not apparently significant. Thanks for the info and all, but I still don't see this as a notable author. Every vanity press worth iots salt adds its books to Amazon these days, just as everybody tries to get on Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG --kingboyk 17:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOLE, and Gastrichcruft. I feel that we're following the spirit of WP:CSB by countering the systemic bias created by adding all this stuff in the first place. Also, this edit amuses me. Stifle 22:44, 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.