This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABC D✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Moffat[edit]

Probable autobiographical article on an artist who shows no evidence of being notable. And surprise, they've got a manifesto. This time, the Neo-Gothic Art movement might have some substance, but I don't think it is defined by this artist. Overall, A true artist goes through years and years of self-doubt, tonnes of work with little payoff; In this case, I suspect a few more years of obscurity are required before an article is warranted. Solipsist 21:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretably. Moderately interesting article but ultimately self-aggrandizing. NN. Agentsoo 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got here after following an anonymous editor placing info that Charles Moffat was allegedly an expert on Lilith mythology on a disambig page and then tons of completely incorrect information about the character added to mythology articles by the same anon user. I looked at contributions and, suprise, same person creates an article claiming that Charles Moffat is an expert on that and being an influential artist, and further made several edits to articles related to his supposed expertise. A Google search for this individual, narrowed to the include the term "artist" because many people have thebase name, shows only 750 links, many of which are sites where people can create their own links so presumably were hit by the person in question just like Wikipedia does. I see no independent links indicating that others find his work influential or that he is an expert in any of the areas he claims to be, and further his website [1] shows what appears to be extremely amateurish work.

I would further recommend an admin rollback his edits, as his changes are extensive and self-promotional in nature. DreamGuy 22:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The edits this anonymous editor made to Lilith are now being restored by an editor claiming that links to Charles Moffat's website counts as reputable sources for the additions the anonymous user (who we suspect of being Moffat himself) made to the article. I would appreciate it if someone here who understands that a person's claims to be an expert and supporting that claim by linking to one's own website is a violation of the policies here on Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability so we can undo the damage this person caused. DreamGuy 01:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity that's had far too much time spent on it. Flowerparty ^talk 03:41, 1 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.