Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert 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   keep. Consensus is clearly to keep and the article has substantially improved during the course of this discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Gifford

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This person does not seem to be notable under either.WP:GNG or WP:PROF.

"Robert Gifford" is a fairly common name, so it's hard to Google, but I don't see a lot buzz about this guy, or really much of any third-party sources. The article doesn't list any.


 * I could add a few, such as NY Times and Nature, see below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z

As to WP:PROF, he's written a couple of books and many papers, but many professors do that. I don't see any indication that the books are especially notable or outstanding. The article claims that he won something called the "2007 Career Award from the Environmental Design Research Association", but WP:PROF #2 asks for a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", and it doesn't sound like his award is that. Nor does the article claim that he has made a significant impact in his field or fulfilled any other requirement of WP:PROF.


 * The textbook is the leading one in the field of environmental psychology, for what that is worth. EDRA has over a thousand members, and awards only one Career Award each year, so it definitely is prestigous within that organization.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z

The only reference given in the article is to a web page written by Robert Gifford himself, which hardly counts, so that this can also be considered an essentially unreferenced WP:BLP.


 * I did not write the web page; it is the University's standard page, for what that is worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z

The main editor recently (although not the article creator) is User:Rdgifford. Given the similarity in names, this may be Robert Gifford himself, so there is the possibility of a WP:COI issue here as well. Herostratus (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I wrote the entry, naively, not knowing all the rules. Actually, it has been on Wikipedia for several years, peacefully. I just add a few things yesterday and all this kerfuffle started now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z
 * Hey...feel free to delete it. I thought this sort of entry was OK, but if not, no big problem. Seems odd, though, if you are going to keep a page like Anthony Cox, an alleged con man and drug dealer whose only claim to fame was allegedly conning Yoko Ono into marrying him. Robert Gifford —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * PS to my comment above...would it matter if I cited articles that describe my work in the New York Times and Nature? As for "notable" I am probably among the top 3 most recognizable people in my field (environmental psychology). However, this is not all that important to me, so if this does not qualify as "notable" and yes, I wrote the entry (I would be very surprised if I am the only one!), please delete the whole thing. Robert Gifford —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. As far as I personally am concerned, confict-of-interest is not a big deal or a deal-killer for an an article, provided the material is accurate and appropriate and sourced (but be aware that it does raise the hackles of some editors). And of course, I don't mean to disparage your distinguished career in any way, I am just applying the Wikipedia rules; nor am I saying that the article must definitely be deleted, only that it is a question worthy of discussion. As to your question "[W]ould it matter if I cited articles that describe my work in the New York Times and Nature?", yes, it most certainly would help - the more quickly you could add such links, the better. As to your statement "The textbook is the leading one in the field of environmental psychology, for what that is worth", it is worth quite a lot, provided that it is true and that you can cite a reference(s) showing this - again, if you could add such a reference(s), now would be a good time to do so. Message me if you have any questions about how to do this. Also, I fully understand your comment re Anthony Cox and, to an extent, share your frustration on this matter, but it is notability rather than worth that is the main driver for deciding on if biographical articles are kept. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Editor in chief of a well-established journal, meets WP:PROF #8. Note to User:Rdgifford: yes, extra sources would help. As WP discourages people to edit their own biography, the best would be to provide sources on the talk page of the article and eventually someone will incorporate them in the article. As for "notable", that has a somewhat different meaning here than in "real life", see WP:PROF andWP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites start off with 476, 84, 72, 70, 50...with an h index of at least 20, so if these cites are identified correctly WP:Prof is passed easily. As for Anthony Cox, Wikipedia, unlike the British Who's Who, is not a compendium of the great and the good. Notable rogues are included as well (but I don't suggest that the subject is one of those). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment Once again, yes this article is autobiographical. I am new to Wiki edting, although the poorly formatted former version of this entry went undiscussed for about three years. I have now tried to make it more typical of standard entries. I don't mind making further minor changes if they seem reasonable. However, I don't want it to continue having these warnings above it. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, someone pelase do it (I don't know how). If the consensus is that autobio or not, it merits inclusion, then please remove the warnings. Thank you from Robert Gifford. Robert GiffordRdgifford (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Setting aside the Conflict of Interest/Autobiography issues, the article is written fairly and neutrally, and is supported by references. The subject easily meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. He is a full professor at a major university and editor of a significant journal. At Google Scholar, his book has been cited 478 times, and several of his papers 50+ times, indicating that his work is significant in his field. I see that the COI and notability warnings have been removed from the article, and I concur. One additional thing the article needs, and I would have no problem with Dr. Gifford adding the information himself, is a simple listing of where he obtained his degrees. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, since the autobiography angle has been an issue, I would suggest Dr. Gifford point me to where I can find the information about his degrees and I will add it myself. If it's on your website, I missed it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2010 (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.