Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Allen Moser

:{{la|Charles Allen Moser}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Allen_Moser Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Charles Allen Moser}})

• Delete (nominator) No evidence of meeting PROF or other relevant guideline. Vanity puff page. Barcaboy2 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - well it's clearly not a "vanity puff page" - I do not believe that Moser is user:Jokestress. As for meeting WP:PROF, it certainly seems possible to likely that he does. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:NACADEMIC/WP:GNG. Chair of the Department of Sexual Medicine at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality isn't a named chair but starts us in the right direction. Elected fellow of the American College of Physicians speaks to WP:NACADEMIC #1 & #3. Also a Fellow of the European Committee of Sexual Medicine. Being the 2009 recipient of the Outstanding Contributions to Sexual Science Award from the Western Region of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality further speaks to WP:NACADEMIC #1 & #2, on editorial boards for some decent journals. Combine those with a good number of citations/coverage and while there's no one slam dunk, notability's there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

::Comment Each piece of evidence Rhododendrites provides actually shows subject is below PROF threshold:

::*Subject does not hold a named chair; department chairships do not meet PROF. (And the school in question is not accredited?)

::*Subject does not have a national/international award. Local/regional awards do not meet PROF.

::*Subject does not hold a position as editor of a scholarly journal. Memberships on editorial boards do not meet PROF.

::*The European Committee of Sexual Medicine is not a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society." All I could find about that group was from their own website http://www.essm.org/society/about-essm.html : "In 1994 in Singapore, during the ISIR (now ISSM) Annual Congress, the ESIR (European Society for Impotence Research) idea was born as the European development of the International Society for Impotence Research." Not a group one can really compare to IEEE, etc. The only other hits to that term are from third-world physicians putting it on their websites.

::*The college of physicians is a professional advocacy group, not a scholarly society.

::The accomplishments listed are all well and good, but do not meet PROF.Barcaboy2 (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, choosing about 5 refs in the article at random, none made any mention of Moser, but were general comments about viagra/fetishes etc. Article certainly needs major 'clean-up' to align text with refs. I suggest delete as not notable.Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Pincrete}} That's an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP matter. The basis for deletion is whether or not sources exist, not whether they're currently cited. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

:::As far as I could see, using ALL of the aids above, they DON'T exist. Many of the refs currently used, which create the impression of an RS article, do not support the text they are attached to. It would help to come to a fair assessment if the text were cleaned up such that it accurately represented what sources really say about Mr Moser, because MAYBE one or two do support SOME of the text, but the available evidence does not support notability of the subject.Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete His position falls short of all the criteria for notability of academics. The tone of the article is promotional with an attempt to make him seem notable, when it is just buzz words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2015 (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.