Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gzlfb

User:Gzlfb

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This userpage violates a myriad of WP:User page policies. It is essentially a weblog detailing activities of the user, including promotion for the user's election campaign, as well as approximately 4 pages of unrelated and promotional links. Ioeth 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The "four pages of unrelated and promotional links" include one of the more impressive links of search engines, which I may well borrow for my own page, and a list of articles in which the editor is interested. If his interest arises from their being elections in which he has run, so what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, the List of search engines article is rather impressive collection as well. --Ioeth 19:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep despite my own personal preferences. Editor has been around, sporadically, for some months now, and has appeared to edit some of the articles he wants to watch. I don't like it, but it seems to be acceptable within policy. John Carter 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter. This user is actually editing articles, so he's not abusing his userspace as a free webhost; he is clearly interested in contributing to the encyclopedia. Deleting this page will accomplish nothing, and is likely to drive him away. WaltonOne 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Walton One. nattan g 08:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Walton's fabulous essay. Besides, I like it, and it's certainly not doing the community any harm, whereas deleting it may.--WaltCip 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's just badly formated, otherwise useful. This user is a good contributer-- Phoenix 15 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (Biased) If only my Vancouver_municipal_election,_2008 Startup was placed here, I had little interest in involving myself too much since I will run, however I do isolate myself, nice to see some people here aren't the bot happy N*zis that others I run into are, I have web sites, sometimes this site is lucky (after they annoy me, and alot with this) to get linked, now with a returned favour "nofollow" since I think it's cheating to take a follow and not send one back, especially when using sources and bibiography; why should they be cheated out of google ranking; your right it's a user page, maybe even "nofollow" should be limited to those; they slandered me a spammer; why I rarely bother is no shock, I am even here as skeptic and rarely get proven wrong.--G-Spot 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite claims above, this user is not a strong contributor to WP; I count 39 edits in all of 2007 . Wikipedia is not a web host; the long list of external links isn't appropriate, especially for a user who is virtually inactive in editing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User is still considered an active contributor.--WaltCip 20:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite your claim, I have done more some of which were not just deleted and currected, but killed off, your bots send into a "why bother phase, and I list resources of interest, nothing more; check my site out if want to remember what they are like. The My Ego Times. Lpedia contributions take more thought in qualification.  I said it, I'd do more if legit fact checkers were involved.  No wannabe admins.  You get hits off me, it rarely happens the other way around.  Who could edit with autodelete bots and no-nothing novices second guessing you, I had an expetease in something and it was a problem.  Like Our Campaigns I'd check out the admins more and be careful on who give what power too.--G-spot 09:11, 01 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep He may be a COI-nik, but he's entitled to a userpage. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The personal info is not excessive. Seeing Wikipedia-related usage. --Alksub 16:55, 1 October 2007 (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.