Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Moglica


 * 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. WP:SNOW Neil N  talk to me 01:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Elliott Moglica

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This mess of an article is self-promotion by a subject who does not meet basic notability criteria nor the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Despite various attempts to tone down the promotional content added by a large number of COI sockpuppet accounts, the article is still basically a giant advertisement, contravening our policies on what Wikipedia is not. It is written in an unencyclopedic tone, and there are still active accounts adding blatantly promotional content and spamming the talk page. Every one of the subject's supposed "major works" is a red link. I looked one up on on Amazon and it appears to be a self-published work with minimal impact. The few reviews are fake, written with over-the-top praise by reviewers who have ONLY reviewed publications by this guy. Basically this guy is a master of self-promotion through the use of sockpuppet accounts. The references are often self-published, and the few reliable news media links are brief articles expressing surprise that someone wrote a very long poem on Justin Trudeau.

The awards do not appear to be reputable. The "International Society of Poets" and "International Library of Poetry" are associated with Poetry.com, a vanity press. The only Google results for the words "Missionary Albanian Artists Association" or "Albanian Martyrs National Association" is this article – granted, it could be a language issue but the general point is that the awards, if they are awards, are not enough to confer notability. Citobun (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or full protect  - The article should be brought up to standards and fully protected and deal with edit requests deleted, looking at the files on Commons, most have been deleted as promotional, even for Commons -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, It is sad to see such an open discriminatins againts this author. I don't see why we need to keep the tempates, since at all sice sources clearly support the material as presented in the article. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.240.138 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note – This IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with "discrimination". Nobody on here owes him anything, for starters — it's the article's responsibility to meet our inclusion standards, not our responsibility to handwave its problems away just because you allege "discrimination" without substantiating any evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Normally I'm not comfortable with calls to delete an article merely for conflicts-of-interest or self-promotion/advertising. Those are not actual grounds for deletion if the subject is demonstrably notable. And then we have this article. I'm going to set aside COI/promotional concerns for a moment. Getting through the fluff, is there an article here, something that fulfills our policy requirements? The closest we can get is the Justin Trudeau poem which received some coverage. Remove that claim for notability and we are left with nothing. As nominator Citobun outlines in their very thorough rationale, the other claims for notability are self-published works reviewed by questionable authors and the awards are also questionable and linked to a vanity press. So that leaves us with the one claim to notability that received some media attention. However, given the lack of any other claim to notability, this would fall squarely under WP:ONEEVENT, and barely that -- the media sources are slim at best. As for the conflict of interest, the self-promotion, the sockpuppetry: taken by themselves they would be a problem but if there was an article that could be otherwise saved, they would not be enough for deletion. That said, given the lack of notability and the publicity campaign by single-purpose accounts who make very few, if any other edits, this lands the article squarely in WP:NOT territory, specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. (I've noticed that if those IPs and accounts do any other editing it involves topics connected to Moglica in some way, such as Cambridge University where Moglica claims to have studied). To put it simply, WP:NOT cannot be satisfied, WP:ONEVENT is applicable, and without that one possible claim to notability the article clearly fails WP:GNG.  freshacconci  (✉) 20:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's Improve the page Well, I look at a few of the references - and they do look like reliable sources of information to me. I don't understand why some people are using Wikipedia to directly or indirectly spread hate. I don't agree with misuse of powers. How can we improve the article? Best regard.British Spelling — Hot British (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Make it better In my view the key here is how to make the page better not to abuse powers. We are all volunteering here. I'm not confortable to go to the extreme. — Hot British (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete It is way past time that we have a policy to delete any article the subject creates on themselves. Beyond this, at best this person has one event notability. The coverage says "look, there is this epic poem on Trudeau". The poem may be notable, but that does not automatically make its author notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and if necessary salt An enormous vanity piece on a non-notable figure "Since 2010, Moglica has been volunteering for Justin Trudeau and LPC — to bring back in power the Liberal Party of Canada. Moglica has been one of the biggest supporters of Justin Trudeau — " it breathlessly intones. A magnet for sockpuppetry, single purpose accounts, self-puffery and so on. Let's close this - and Moglica - down, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete with SALT. I've been involved in dealing with this situation in the past, but I eventually got fed up and washed my hands of it entirely — but it's been clear from the start that this has always been a self-promotion campaign by a writer who feels entitled to have a Wikipedia article for public relations purposes. The only strong notability claim he ever really had makes him a WP:BLP1E at best, and otherwise this keeps getting tarted up with blatant promotional puffery and unreliable sourcing. There simply isn't the substance, or the reliable sourcing, needed to hang a Wikipedia article on. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No need to delete and we should be respectful and kind to each other. Why are you doing this when someone has tried to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)  — 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (UTC).
 * Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Improve and/or protect - no need to be disrespectful against the author Hello everyone, I don't know why we need to blame the author here? The fact is that as comments become more disrespectful, we should not forget the say "treat others as you want to be treated". This writer is a published author of many books by many publishers. Let me make it clear: I don't have any connection with the author, but I have read some of his best books. Thus, if a person is making wrong edits, without reaching a consensus, we should not blame this author. The best way, indeed, is help with editing if you can, by beeing respectful. Thank you for understanding. Have a lovely day to all. British Spelling 22:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)
 * Firstly, you get one "vote" in an AFD discussion, not multiple votes. You can comment as many times as you like, but you do not get to preface any further comments with another bolded restatement of the "keep" vote you've already given.
 * Secondly, being "respectful" to an article topic does not mean always we have to keep an article. In actual fact, there are many situations where the most respectful thing we can do is to delete the article — having a Wikipedia article is actually a double-edged sword with much more negative consequences than people always necessarily realize. Our articles can be, and are, quite regularly edited to attack our article subjects, to invade their privacy with unsourced personal information about their sex lives, or to overwrite the whole damn thing with an article about some other person who happens to have the same name or a recipe for raisin bread — and if you think I'm making that up, I'm not, because every one of those things has really happened just within the past few weeks alone. And below a certain level of established prominence and sourceability, the risk of that happening outweighs our ability to control it — an inappropriate edit to Justin Trudeau will get caught and reverted within minutes, because a lot of people are watching his article, but an inappropriate edit to a minor person of low public visibility can linger in the article for months because nobody has seen it. So below a certain level of established prominence and sourceability, the most "respectful" thing we can do, the best way to protect them from that risk, is to not keep an article at all.
 * And finally, nobody actually believes your claim that you have no connection to the subject. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Hot British's first edits were on Feb. 3 including this article's talk page. That edit was to change the library record information in a link provided by one of the blocked IP addressed linked to Moglica, the same one that had the hilarious conversation all from the one IP address. It seems like a strange edit so soon after registering the account. Hot British has made a higher range of edits aside from the Moglica article, although still limited. However, this editor's use of English is the same as the confirmed socks and IP addresses, not to mention the same type of "concerns" about the article, calling it "disrespectful" or calling for people to be "respectful".  freshacconci  (✉) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG, It's so disturbing to read some comments above, when we, editors, can find some common grounds by editing the page. Do as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's find common ground Editors, as an editor, it's so disturbing to read some comments above, when we, volunteers, can find some common grounds by editing the page instead. Do as you wish! British Spelling 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Thanks you for your time.


 * What does this even mean? What common ground is there to find? An article, written by the subject and maintained by a series of sockpuppets, is up for deletion using some very reasonable criteria. The various sockpuppets speak of "respect" but where is the respect for other editors, who have to spend their volunteer time removing blatantly promotional material? Where's the respect for Wikipedia as a resource? What "common ground" would you have us find? Presumably, by common ground you mean we should leave you alone to do what you wish. Fortunately, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to regulate its articles. I encourage you to read What Wikipedia is Not.  freshacconci  (✉) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your time and for providing a very helpful link as well.British Spelling 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Keep it — a page supported with appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:B527:F60:3DE8:AD22 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep it — a page supported with many appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.160.85 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per the above arguments. Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2017 (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.