Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GregDougGunn/K.Roberts


 * 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 delete all. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 23:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:GregDougGunn/K.Roberts
Also:


 * User:GregDougGunn/010209
 * User:GregDougGunn/012609
 * User:GregDougGunn/010509
 * User:GregDougGunn/030109
 * User:GregDougGunn/010709
 * User:Gregunn/resume
 * User:Gregunn/resume gates
 * User:BethelLee/02062009
 * File:Greg tc.jpg
 * File:Greg and meg.jpg
 * File:Canada-flag-students.jpg
 * File:Syriabethel.JPG
 * File:Thailandbethel.jpg
 * File:Bethelsrilanka.jpg
 * File:Bloveskorean2.JPG
 * File:Bloveskorean.JPG
 * File:BabyBethel.jpg

Excessive use of Wikipedia as a resume service. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion. Users have negligible encyclopedic contributions and have been inactive for three months. MER-C 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Excessive self-promotion featured on dozens of subpages. No contribution to the main space. Uses Wikipedia as a free web host for his and his girlfriend's resumes. In addition, he should be ashamed of himself as his lies are outrageous. He actually states he was Time's Person of the Year. Here's the reference for your pleasure - Time's Person of the Year: You. His resume is so funny, it's actually worth reading. We have now our own, Wikipedian Aleksey Vayner. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the Time claim is clearly a joke (see, e.g., User:Orangemonster2k1/Userboxes/Time2006, a not uncommon userbox that makes the same facetious (and accurate, if not particularly clever) profession, and the G returns, which suggest the existence of a meme). In any case, it is best that we avoid commenting derisively on the contributor in evaluating pages in his userspace; it is not our role to mock and shame, even when we deal with those who volitionally misuse our resources.  76.229.219.208 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. I recommend you read his page carefully as I am familiar with internet memes. In any case, I felt it was appropriate to comment on this guy's motives and not the person himself. Possibly, you were blinded by your own motives when mocking my previous post. Thank you for strating a discussion wasting even more of our resources. I advice you to 1) Log-in next time before posting comments as they're unreliable when you use an IP adress. 2) Adress the topic with either delete or keep, instead of flaming other users. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I was perfectly decorous in offering a gentle reminder that NPA applies at least minimally even to those whom we don't we like; it is fine to comment on motives where relevant (here, "overly promotional", which speaks to both effects and motives, is fine), but not particularly helpful to speak more generally, as, for instance, in saying that another user should be "ashamed of himself" because of his "outrageous" lies. Neither, it should be said, is there anything wrong with my editing without an account, and although IP comments may be given less weight at XfD, lest a false consensus driven by the participation of non-'pedians or of sockpuppets should appear, there is not&mdash;and never will be&mdash;any proscription against one's offering comments in a deletion discussion (contra, I guess, your final point as well; discussion is encouraged beyond simple binary !voting, and although my comments did not address the underlying deletion issue [I would have dropped you a note on your talk page, but I thought it necessary to weigh in here lest anyone else should mock the user], they are not necessarily inapposite).  It is true, though, that we've strayed a bit from the topic at bar, so any follow-up should probably be taken to talk; feel free to hit me up at my talk page.  68.248.225.158 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit your logic is undeniable. The statement he should be ashamed of himself is indeed hard to categorise as a comment on motives. Now that we established that, look at his introductory sentence - Greg Gunn is an exceptionally creative entrepreneur. Yes, Gregg, I have to admit you really are exceptionally creative. Your resume is such an outstanding display of creativity that if you never considered applying for a job in an advertising company, give it a go and send them that resume of yours. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. Clear violation of WP:UP.-- Club Oranje T 10:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete goes well beyond the c.v. exemption for userspace. Collect (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overly promotional outright, let alone for a non-serious contributor.  Blank such pages on discovery.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEBHOST]. Seems clear-cut to me. Firestorm  Talk 01:51, 28 July 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.