Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Moss

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep after a debate where most of the votes are plainly invalid (from probable sockpuppets). There are several "good" keep votes at the end of the debate though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roger Moss

person of little importance, possible self promotion 209.137.173.69 20:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minor author. A search of several major library catalogs, including the New York Public Library, reveal that he is the author of two renovation/how to books including one on lighting and on paint and wallpaper selection. If we list every author who has only writen a book or two on minor and specialist topics things would spiral out of control. Toasthaven 15:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Account created 24 May 2005. User's 8th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 20:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. If he ever gets a home improvement show, maybe, but until then no. Hohokus 22:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Account created 9 Jun 2005, the day before this edit. User's 13th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable! A Google search does not list the Roger Moss in question, but lists a photographer, a literature professor in the UK, a member of a Galveston, Texas message board, the author of an out of print romance novel, a California real estate agent, a junior research fellow at Oxford, a high school wrestling coach in Connecticut, etc. Who the hell is this guy in the article? Melvis 16:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 21th edit, 14 of which were VFD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT For those above voting on an "author", that was a complete change of the article inserted by Toasthaven. The original article is about Philadelphia historian. --Xcali 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENTThis Roger Moss who is a Philadelphia historian did not show up in any resarch that I have done. It is either he is so noteworthy that there are no Google hits for a historian from Philadelphia by that name, at least in the first couple of hundred hits or that he is just some minor person who may or may not be a historian that someone hates, did you even read the article? Toasthaven 22:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Jinkleberries 19:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not going to vote on the grounds I may be biased (I don't know the guy, but I certainly know his work), but Roger Moss was very well-known in U.S. historic preservation circles, at least in the 1980s and 1990s. His book about historic American paint colors was pretty influential at the time. I don't know what's going on now. --Mothperson 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I take it back. I am going to vote. He's a large part of the reason old American houses are no longer automatically painted white. KEEP and expand rewrite in NPOV--Mothperson 18:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Mothperson 10:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))
    • Also, google "Roger Moss historic American paint colors" and there are 70,900 hits (except I forgot to turn off French and Italian, so that may be wrong, still...). Add "Sherwin Williams" to that phrase and you cut it down to about 40,000, but Moss was involved in getting that paint company to put out a whole line of what, at the time, were pretty outré but historically accurate colors, Arts and Crafts stuff, really deeply pigmented . And the line sold. Still does, as far as I know. Even has imitators. --Mothperson 19:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Just because this guy is a paint expert doesn't mean he is notable. Toasthaven 14:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And yet another comment. Okay, now I'm getting pissed. I've been out of the preservation loop for a few years, but after doing a little checking around, it's obvious to me that Toast up there and other anonymous contributors to the article as it stands now are writing it because they can't stand the man. It has nothing to do with the executive director of the Athenaeum of Philadelphia for the last 36 years who just got a life-time achievement award for his works in Philadelphia preservation, or the man who has written multiple influential books and articles about preservation, or the man who was one of the first to start collecting historic architectural drawings for the Athenaeum's library, or... I could go on, but I would prefer to save it for the article, which should be wrenched from the POV-slimed hands of these disgruntled folk. You should not delete this article. This man is notable. And yeah, you do make a lot of enemies in the preservation field in the U.S. The concept of stewardship is all too often viewed as unAmerican. I feel myself going off into a rant. I will stop. But seriously, please do not delete this article because of misunderstandings as to who Moss is, or where the article comes from. For you article "authors", go write a letter to the editor or something. --Mothperson 21:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Then why does this not come up while Googling the person? He is not notable and doesn't meet any of the WP:BIO guidelines. Also, if he is so important why does he seem to only have two how to books in the collections of major libraries? That defines not notable! If we list very minor authors like Moss where will we end up? Toasthaven 14:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • My dear Toast – perhaps you did not google "Roger W. Moss." But perhaps you'd rather not. --Mothperson 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I forgot to answer your question, and I do not want you spiraling out of control with worry. If we list influential stewards of our historic and cultural heritages - like Moss, their professional achievements - like Moss's, and their educational legacies - like Moss's, we will end up with a pretty fine encyclopedia. At least until the asteroid hits us. So you can calm down until then. --Mothperson 16:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Moss belongs in the phonebook and a couple of library card catalogs for his how to books, but thats it. After he is dead, nobody but his family will care, so he will have a negilable legacy, if any. Toasthaven 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP preservationist Roger Moss. Absolutely notable, absolutely important works, absolutely belongs in Wikipedia. Unfortunate to have caused the ire of religious leaders for his favoring keeping churches unrenovated for their historical value rather than remodeled. All in all, very interesting. --Unfocused 16:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds that he is a notable figure in the historical preservation movement, and on the grounds that some of the delete votes appear to be a coordinated sockpuppet effort (similar to the VFDs on Historical Mississippi License Plates and several others). Kaibabsquirrel 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who and the Directory of American Scholars. Add that to the fact that he's director of a notable institution, author of a number of books, and the facts noted by others in this discussion. Gamaliel 21:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I could have been in Who's Who or the Directory of American Scholars, too but I didn't want to pony up the money for it. Everybody knows those things is a scam designed to bilk people out of their money. Didn't you see that episode of Dragnet? The guy is a minor player in his field, and should be deleted! Toasthaven 19:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Interesting, then, that my library school reference work textbook says the series "has a long history of reliability". Sure, there are plenty of books you can buy your way into, and these may be some of them, but I'll rely on a long established series of respected reference works rather than your word. Note that I don't suggest that people use an appearance in a work such as this to be the sole criteria for inclusion, but this added to the other evidence and arguments presented is plenty convincing. Gamaliel 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Toast! Where've you guys been? At the beach? Oh, right. You, Coney, Hoho, Shure, Melvis, Spot, Toby, and fearless leader 209 must all be busy writing that biography of Edd K or something equally noteable. Still, that's no reason for Spot and Toby not to come vote here. Tell them I said for shame! Lazy things. --Mothperson 21:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S. What does "negilable" mean?
          • I would like to add that "After he is dead, nobody but his family will care" is really not a very nice thing to say. Especially if you consider yourself a good Episcopalian. Besides, it's not true. Otherwise, why would I be wasting my time having conversations with a knitted garment of bilious hue, when I should be writing about Bonomo's Turkish Taffy? --Mothperson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roger_Moss&oldid=1138313667"