Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Ge Moll


 * 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. Michig (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Johann Ge Moll

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has never met WP:BIO. There is no evidence to suggest that the subject meets notability requirements. All listed achievements and references are either unsubstantiated (e.g. the claim of a "Nobel prize nomination in Literature 2009" isn't verifiable because such nominations are not publicly disclosed) or consist solely of self-published work. MarkH21 (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Abelmoschus Esculentus talk /  contribs 09:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarkH21 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * delete The article's references do not support a claim of notability and my own google search found nothing to show he meets any notability standard, including the GNG. The article is by an SPA (WP:AUTO?) and uses lots of puffery instead of solid evidence--"known by his works on ...","build the new way of thought, sensibility and cognizing", "rises to popularity during the 1990s", etc. There's no evidence he's notable for his poetry or philosophical writings--or anything else.Sandals1 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the sort of article that WP:TNT was written to address. No reader of the encyclopedia is served by this article, and no editor should be tasked with trying to disentangle this knot of jargon. Blow it up. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with, this article is full of weasel words that are so ingrained an entire rewrite is necessary to make it comply with NPOV. As for the notability, the lack of secondary sources and independent coverage suggests Moll fails BIO, so deletion is in order anyway.    SITH   (talk)   17:35, 9 January 2019 (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.