Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Zimmerman (technologist)


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Matt_Zimmerman_(technologist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely non-notable. Only source is of a Google Plus page. Fails WP:BLP. Moreover it's an auto-bio per WP:WWA Doublefrog (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Doublefrog has been blocked indef as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete fails GNG, not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't meet GNG. There are lots of mentions in articles about Ubuntu, but not even a redirect is appropriate as there are references to him leaving. FYI  I don't think Doublefrog being a sockpuppet or not affects this afd.  —Мандичка YO 😜 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it affects the AfD. As the sockpuppet is not an editor in good standing, but rather an indef blocked editor, his !vote has zero weight. Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's required to be an "editor in good standing" to propose an AfD, which are decided based on consensus. I don't think you even need to have an account to create an AfD. The problem with socks is if they are used to create a false consensus. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously?? And what, pray tell, is the basis for you "not thinking" that? Just a hunch? A feeling? Nothing based on ... say ... a guideline? If your thought process is that non-Wikipedians (and an indef blocked editor is clearly not a Wikipedian ... he has none of the rights of a Wikipedian) can !vote at and take part in an AfD, then you haven't bothered to read very far into Articles for deletion. For example -- say -- the very first sentence. Only Wikipedians are allowed to be part of the AfD discussion. Not indef blocked users, such as this one. And he was one and the same as an already indef blocked user at the time of his creation of this page, and his !vote. Edits by an indef blocked editor of on his behalf during his block may generally be reverted without question (and in fact any pages where the blocked editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor (no longer the case here) may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5. Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the basis that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and my own philosophy of not being a pretentious twat. Above all the goal is to improve Wikipedia, (see WP:IAR); what does it matter who does it? If the worst all-time troll fixes a typo, is it somehow a less valuable contribution than if someone else did it? Should it be reverted because of who did it? I would hope not. I don't see why AfD is any different, especially because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Mere votes don't matter. So whether someone with one account or 5,000 accounts suggested Matt Zimmerman for deletion, I couldn't care less. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" does not mean "sockpuppets can edit Wikipedia." I would think that would be obvious. Whether or not you are a twat, and whether or not you are pretentious. And IAR does not mean "I can ignore any rule IDONTLIKE." As the guideline I pointed you to, AfD is not open to one or more sockpuppets !voting ... their !votes simply don't count. The rule is the same here for one sockpuppet, or two, or ten. And, as we seek to close discussions on consensus (of wikipedians), it does matter if 5,000 sockpuppets were to !vote at this AfD. And, likewise, one. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 16 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.