- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-advertisement by editor with a long history of COI edits and spamming Wikipedia Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As an ad, it surely is not very much of one, as it basically consists of a short list of his books. Background of an editor is not a valid reason to delete such a short and innocuous page. User has been active since September 2008 really -- and it was only on 28 Oct 2009 that anyone seemed to raise COI as an issue -- and the COI (other than his own bio) is marginal (lest we bar lawyers from editing on any legal topic for which they did any articles for any journal, etc.) "Long history" to me means more than a month with an account. As for "spamming" I found not a single mention of this edoitor in a search of all projectspace. As to the COI for the bio -- I note that this account has not edited it. So we have non-spam, non-ad by an edoitor who has been accused for less than a month of COI and judged guilty without any WP discussion? Not a valid reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My intentions are honorable. Have welcomed, and will continue to welcome, guidance on how to contribute without crossing the conflict of interest lines. I am a thought leader in this area, having written three books on the subject (two already published by Wiley and one in production by them). My goal is to contribute to individuals, groups and knowledge. How am I not exactly the type of exerienced, knowledgeable, willing contributor you want to encourage?Gbradt (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, try reading WP:Areas for Reform and the discussions about having new edtors. Collect (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the nomination misrepresents the page to an extent. This is hardly an advertisement. I don't think it violates WP:UP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This page tells us about the contributing editor. It would be good if User:Gbradt told us a little more about himself (his interests, his intentions) than just his published books. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the prompt SmokeyJoe. Added more about myself, interests and intentions. Will add more if I think of anything that might be of any interest to anyone. Gbradt (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please note that the page has been edited since it was brought to Mfd. - ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - note, however, that the userpage as edited still includes no less than four external links to commercial sites with which the user is affiliated. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the edits introduced external links. The links to the books I think are probably OK, but he should remove or minimise external links, especially where there is any hint of promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.