Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Gifford

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. With no prejudice to recreation once reliable sources have been found for this individual that allow WP:GNG.to be met Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gifford[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of secondary sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running a search on books using the above find sources tool brings up the author's publication. The publication itself has received acclaim and positive reviews from the development community it was targeting. These reviews can be used in reference to the author.

Please view the article with updated cite information. There is more to be added in, relating to publications through the UNEP relating to development work in regards to coral reef databases. MrsGorilla (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of cite and extra publication where the author was involved with the project and referenced as a contributor, as well as developer of iT systems accompanying / forming a key part of the publication MrsGorilla (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following a series of content revisions for this subject, this author created an important publication (the first to cover OOP for ColdFusion development) and various other sources have been included, as well as external publications relating to UNEP work. I believe that WP:GNG has been met, as has WP:BIO in regards to providing more information to the author's background and previous history (from a career and personal perspective). MrsGorilla (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable blogger whose sole book is out from a vanity press. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'non-notable blogger' was not published by vanity press. Research into Packt Publishing will show it's a reputable tech publishing house that does not publish 'for a fee', nor was the publication self-funded. The book has also been used as a core resource for presentations on the subject, as well as teaching material at various courses. I will find details and add to entry. Again, this is the first and only book published that deals with Object-Oriented Programming in the ColdFusion development environment. This was an important publication for those within this community. As such, this would fall under WP:AUTHOR -> WP:CREATIVE 4.a) (significant monument within the community to which it was aimed) and 1) as a well-recognised individual within the community. MrsGorilla (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simply having recently published a book is not a criterion for notability. Packt Publishing is a print on demand publisher. While perhaps it is not technically a "vanity press", this is a step down from more reputable publishers. According to Worldcat, there is only one library that holds this book [1], so it does not even come close to the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. It may be that this book does eventually become important for the reason you say, but that happy day has not yet come and, alas, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User "Mrs. Gorilla" is voting multiple times here and has already admitted, on his user page, that he is Matt Gifford himself. This article is nothing more than self-promo WP:SPAM. It does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:BOOK. Furthermore, his publisher, as explained on its own webpage [2], is nothing more than a vanity press that takes all comers. Also, Gifford has spammed himself into multiple articles throughout Wikipedia, and it's going to take us a lot of work to weed out all of his spam. Qworty (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to above comment from Qworty (talk). I am Matt Gifford, the subject of this article/entry. I have many issues with your above comment. Firstly, where does the publisher's website state in any way that they are a vanity press? Please provide details to back this up. Packt do openly invite developers and individuals within the communities to submit book proposals to them in an attempt to extend knowledge in various areas. Having written my own book through them, I can also quite happily discuss with you the levels of chapter synopsis, communications to and from the publishing house, and my final contract with them. So, they do freely accept proposals, but they do not publish every individual who does send ideas. Secondly, and more importantly, I am concerned that you have so easily publicly stated that this article was written by me (it wasnt) and that I have spammed myself into other articles. As a developer, writer and speaker, my online identity is incredibly important to me, and I take great offence in the implication and seeing my name associated with spam, which I see as libellous. Having read through the history of the article and the original author's other contributions, the only other entry appears to be the addition of the book to the OOP page, which is an incredibly valid addition. As MrsGorilla (talk) originally stated, this is the first and only book to cover that subject for the development language ColdFusion - one of the reasons why the book was written. Again, the use of language from above commenter that it's going to take 'a lot of work to weed out all of his spam' is incorrect and unjustified. It is one additional entry from what I can see, and the negative implications of these actions against my name is simply wrong and unjustified. I respectfully request that actions are taken to remedy these slurs against my name (spam related). I have not written this article or added to it (in fact, I had to search through to find my login details as i havent used this account for so long), and I am not adding any note here in regards to the actual article; purely a defence against my own name. Mattgifford (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addition to above comment - after short investigation even to an inexperienced user such as myself, you can clearly see by following the conversation from the start that MrsGorilla (talk) is not me, nor has ever claimed to be. The initial draft of the article was userfied by Catfish Jim & the soapdish to act as a backup. As such, once again Qworty (talk) seems to be spouting inacuracies about individuals involved in this article. Mattgifford (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.