Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/User:Ericgwright

User:Ericgwright
This page reads more like an ad to me that a user biography. It is written in the third person, and the contributor has made no other edits to WB. The only other contribution I can find to any wikimedia project is where he (or one of his employees) uploaded a scan of his business card. Normally, I would delete this as speedy, but since there are no links, and it is a user page, I wanted to get consensus. Does anyone think this could be a legitimate user with an intent to contribute meaningful content? --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is an abstract of work to be presented in an academic forum. Additional content wil be provided over time. It is intended as an abstract, to identify the author and to provide contact information. (unsigned post made by User:Ericgwright on 02:21, 9 January 2012‎ )


 * Moot as the page is now blanked... Chazz (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there is private information on the page that we are not competent nor required to verify the validity for a deletion is still present. Panic (discuss • contribs) 04:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The page has been blanked by the Ericgwright, since it is in his namespace unless Jomegat opposes, this RfD should be closed. I think that this could have been better handled by simply talking to the user, especially since the user has been only Wikibooks for 2 days. I know that time is scarce and most wikibookians that remain doing cleanups, me included, have lost the patience to dedicate much time into reasoning with what we would agree are mostly unreasonable persons but on taking that approach some care must be made not to alienate the few that are only acting by misunderstanding or ignorance of our rules, if not we will risk alienating some valid contributors.
 * The fact remains that Jomegat was correct on his assessment, but Ericgwright is not the only person using the face page of his user space as a draft-page and we have no policy or guideline that prevents the use, so the core of Jomegat concern is the validity of the information. To me I do not think that such content can be speedy deleted (like Jomegat states) since it can not be categorized as meaningless content (to the use and to a reader) unless it was offensive or a link spam or had a clear and exclusive commercial or advertising objective, the issue seems to be in this last category. Mostly because of the contact information provided (private information) that we normally redact on the spot and talk to the user about.
 * Sadly we do not have a community agreement that permits us to act consistently on this issues, for instance imagine that Ericgwright was posting his contacts at an University...
 * I expect that Ericgwright understand our problem with the commercial use of the project (even if in my view we can accommodate some commercial content and even advertisements if they are not blatant or the user exclusive interest on the project, for instance a request for job offerings, the support of some religion, group, institution, brand if done in a reasonable and tasteful way). I would also support a policy change to prevent the use of emails and telephone numbers and addresses of any such content and of private third persons in general (going so far to validate a speedy if the rest of the content has no value to the community), and a prohibition on using the main user page as a draft page. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have extended an apology to Mr Wright, and I agree that the RfD should be closed. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)