Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg W. Moore

Add links
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 snowball delete, to save any more arguments on an overinflated discussion which has reached a conclusion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg W. Moore[edit]

Greg W. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The *best* reference is a trivial reference on a partisan blog. The article and sources (which are databases and listings) show a solid but non-notable government employee. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the scientific community there are special, and very thorough peer-review processes to evaluate whether somebody is or is not a notable person. In proven cases - when the result is positive - the community nominates individuals to memberships in organizations which recognize the accomplishments. And - there is no higher recognition, except the Nobel Prize, than a membership in an academy of sciences. This way Dr. Greg W. Moore became a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences. This way also Dr. Greg W. Moore received a special recognition from the U.S. Senate, Committee (Democratic !) Chairman Sen. Bennett Johnston. This way also Dr. Greg W. Moore was recently included into the report issued (see the quote) by the U.S. Senate - this time led by a Republican (!) group. So - there is no better proof of objective/neutral recognition of Dr. Greg W. Moore by the community as it comes from BOTH the Democrats and Republicans. Dr. Moore was also so much involved in serious management of various activities within the community that he eventually was offered a very unique opportunity of leaving the academic community and joining the U.S. Government community as a scientific consultant which he did. So - he did not loose any titles - he simply changed the professional environment, which was a kind of "promotion", by his own choice. Greg W. Moore (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are talking here about an article titled "Greg W. Moore" - THIS is the subject of the discussion and not my person. Besides - almost all the data pieces were not, kind of, written by me but are an almost a copy of the statement and the report issued by the U.S. Senate - that's why it is not an autobiography - it is a quote from a public (and very high level) source/resource. It is also neutral and objective as "Greg W. Moore" received recognitions from BOTH sides - Democratic and Republican. Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment For the record, Google only has 33 results on "Greg W. Moore" (and I don't know which ones refer to him) and Google news has none.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is almost a copy of a statement from the US Senate, then surely it is a Copyright violation. Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Greg W. Moore is aka G.W. Gmurczyk (legal name change) - so you should Google G.W. Gmurczyk too - he generated a lot of papers and reports under the latter name (recognized already by the U.S. Senate and the New York Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Government). Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31 results for "G.W. Gmurczyk" on Google and none on Google news.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it 64 items total - quite a lot but still, with full respect, it is not Google which conducts thorough professional peer-review processes and decides on nominations to academies of sciences - it is the very professional community which does it - and they did. As I mentioned already - both the U.S. Senate and the New York Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Government recognize it. That's plenty - and I am saying that as a member of another notable organization not mentioned before - namely: Washington Editorial Review Board which is a U.S. Government interagency elite professional body. Greg W. Moore (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except not all those sites refer to you. For example, I don't think you're a reverend, and you're clearly not deceased. On a related note, a Google search for your name and the organizations that you mention only brings up your Wikipedia article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "And - there is no higher recognition, except the Nobel Prize, than a membership in an academy of sciences. This way Dr. Greg W. Moore became a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences." As near as I can tell from the New York Academy of Sciences website, all one has to do to become a member is pay them $108 (or less if one is a student). Deor (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not check all the items with the name Greg W. Moore but certainly ALL the 31 items with the earlier version of the name G.W. Gmurczyk are mine - there is no other person with the name G.W. Gmurczyk in the world. Re: the NYAS - you won't become a member unless you have a proven and recognized list of accomplishments. Again - instead of searching for info here and there - see the most recent statement and report just issued by the U.S. Senate which includes a summary of ALL recognized and reliable information all in one place/document. They already did the whole verification. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be the only "G.W. Gmurzyk" in the world is quite a big claim, and not one of a proper scientist. If you really are as notable as you claim, why has someone else not written a neutral article about you? Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They already did - it is included in the summary report by the U.S. Senate (see Ref.#5). This article is merely a copy (almost) of it. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. ref #5 is not a neutral wikipedia article. It is a quote from you (with a political agenda) with a short WP:Peacock bio. The article on wikipedia is your own work, which is not backed up by the sources which you have provided, not very good from a scientist. Martin451 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned above in support of deletion. Ref #5 does not show that the US Senate reported anything about you, but that a Senate staffer added you into a committee report. That is different from being honored by the Senate, and besides, even being honored by the Senate does not in itself make one worthy of an encyclopedic article. The New York Academy of Sciences has 25,000 members according to its article, and surely they are all not worthy of Wikipedia articles. I am usually sympathetic to keeping articles of professors and scientists, but the article says nothing about any of your papers and you assert other reasons of importance for you as a subject, none of which qualify for a Wikipedia article from what I have seen so far. The first words of the article say it all: there are many technology consultants to the federal government and that simply does not impart notability.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious conflict of interest as an autobiography. That said, I still don't think notability has been established. Using big words and mentions of scientific concepts doesn't make up for it. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Getting hired by the fed does not make someone notable, what you do does. Even though govt. websites are considered reliable sources, the mentions in here don't show me notability. I also have serious concerns about the WP:COI issue involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails basic WP:N - not enough secondary sources to prove his notability. Also fails WP:PROF by almost any measure - not a full professor or department chair, no extensive list of publications or teaching credentials. Furthermore fails WP:FRINGE - advocate of a non-notable fringe theory. Membership in the New York Academy or name-dropping Congressional reports do not prove notability. No ability to verify any of this information from ordinary Internet searches. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Disclosure: I was a former student member of the New York Academy. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Person not notable.LouriePieterse (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The significance of "senior member" in AIAA seems to be roughly on par with NYAS (see above), i.e. not notable. It is evidently a membership upgrade one earns for having been a member in good standing for at least 8 years. Documentation is here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong delete Non-notable, and haranguing every delete commenter is not helping your cause, Mr Moore. ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Greg just tried to remove the AFD template off the article as well as the autobiography tag.[1]--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report Somebody at Wikipedia who has access to the right tools has removed a large portion of the discussion which happened yesterday afternoon. As ttonyb1 just confirmed it even the history tool does not show the removal nor who did it so - somebody did it at the deep level within the system. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I indicated in the user's talk page, "I think you [Moore] are clearly mistaken. Wikipedia history is not edited except in extreme cases where there are user issues. In those cases the entry is not removed only the actual text the entry refers to. No one has an incentive nor the time to request this type of change to your talk page history." ttonyb1 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article of questionable reliability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Can it be snowy if there is one person objecting? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable individual. — Jake Wartenberg 04:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FROM THE AUTHOR: GREG W. MOORE[edit]

PLEASE DELETE THE ARTICLE "GREG W. MOORE" FROM THE WIKIPEDIA RESOURCES. REASON: EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL, LOW QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS. THANKS!

Unfortunately your own Wikipedia contributors have badly violated your own rules - namely: one of them keeps promoting his own political agenda (see records of his modifications he did to the article by adding the name Inhofe) by suggesting that the very article and the subject of the article are completely biased politically which completely contradicts the truth as the subject of the article was highly evaluated throughout his career by both parties equally. Even more - that same Minority report just issued, quoated Greg W. Moore as a person who claims there is no evidence on Global Warming to support either side - neither Warming alarmists nor deniers. This way your contributors completely distort the truth and paint the subject of the article in a way he has absolutely no connection with. In other words - your contributors are highly unprofessional, biased, and clearly vandalize Wikipedia by violating its own rules. That is why please remove the article from such a unprofessional environment. Thanks. Greg W. Moore (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whose own agenda? What modifications? If an editor is acting out of line, go to WP:AN/I. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment There is one very notable Gregory W Moore, who has worked on theoretical physics. T Scopus shows 75 paper, and the citation counts are 429,221, 204, 172 , 155 , 117, etc. The most cited paper is "onabeuons in the fractional quantum hall effect" by Moore, G. , Read, N Nuclear Physics B Volume 360, Issue 2-3, 1991, Pages 362-396 . I don't think that the person we are discussing here, though. As for this GW Moore, I cannot find a full CV, so it is hard to tell. Does anyone actually have one available DGG (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_W._Moore&oldid=1084278039"