Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas R. Moore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas R. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Photographer of questionable notability. Only had one show with local coverage in the 80s. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Google searches on "Thomas R. Moore" "Lake Charles" and "Thomas R. Moore" "natural light" (to try and differentiate from from other Thomas R. Moores (like this one or this one) shows very few results. Only major reference is about someone else. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment , the 4 different(?) editors who created and worked on this article have only worked on this article. How nice to have such good friends. Self-promotion. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I counted six, if you include all the instant helpers who showed up to speak for the subject. I've started a sockpuppet investigation as well, as the duck test seems appropriate. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In defense of the authorship, I am using an open computer and there are no sock puppets involved. The statements made are purely speculation and not based on facts. What the editor stated originally was inaccurate. The number of references does not necessarily validate a fact as long as there is ONE credible source of information, which in this case, is a newspaper. That, in of itself, is a suitable source for this article. I do not appreciate the personal attacks and false statements made about me as a writer. With that included, you make yourself liable. MKeimPhD (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MKeimPhD was found to be one of 12 sockpuppet accounts run by one user. Looks like I'm not "liable"... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, liable for what? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was a thinly veiled legal threat, James... doesn't matter now, tho... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course it was intended to be a thinly veiled legal threat, but unless it says what you are "liable" for it is meaningless. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was a thinly veiled legal threat, James... doesn't matter now, tho... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, liable for what? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MKeimPhD was found to be one of 12 sockpuppet accounts run by one user. Looks like I'm not "liable"... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In defense of the authorship, I am using an open computer and there are no sock puppets involved. The statements made are purely speculation and not based on facts. What the editor stated originally was inaccurate. The number of references does not necessarily validate a fact as long as there is ONE credible source of information, which in this case, is a newspaper. That, in of itself, is a suitable source for this article. I do not appreciate the personal attacks and false statements made about me as a writer. With that included, you make yourself liable. MKeimPhD (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. No substantial coverage in reliable sources anywhere, as far as I can see. Of the two references in the article, the only one which is online does not even mention Moore. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Using sockpuppets to write good things about your own article doesn't work. Self promotion is not welcome. Astronaut (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2011 (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.