Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Moss


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  06:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Simon Moss

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. No results for google, news or scholar search on the name with "monash university". Only source is a self-written bio. According to an archive of the external link at, "Psychlopedia is a wiki site that presents information about psychology" yet I cannot find any mention of such a site elsewhere. The account which created it was accused of COI editing and only has edits to that page, but it seems notability was not established post-cleanup. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. JM (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete unless more substance is added to this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC).
 * Comment. Half of our two-sentence article appears to be outdated or wrong. He has not been at Monash for a long time. As of around 2020 he was listed as an associate professor and dean of graduate studies at Charles Darwin University but his research profile there now lists him as "adjunct associate" so it's unclear to me whether he is really still there. In any case those titles do not provide notability in themselves. His Google Scholar profile is and appears to have high citation numbers, but (1) these need to be calibrated for the fact that this is a high citation field, and (2) if we cannot say anything verifiable and sourced about him we cannot have an article even if he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The highly cited Google Scholar papers are also highly coauthored, and middle author (in a field where that matters) on a paper with 10 coauthors doesn't convince me of so much, particularly in the high citation field.  Little other sign of notability.  "Weak" because of the one highly cited paper on which he is last author, but I don't think this meets WP:NPROF C1 in the high citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2023 (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.