Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68

User:Cla68

User:Cla68 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per WP:PROMO and WP:UP, we do not allow advertisements for services to be located on userpages. Indeed, we often block the editors who continue to bring commercialism to Wikipedia. The userpage is intended to provide info about the user to the community - not to advertise a product or service. Additionally, the specific service being advertised - paid editing of the "free" encyclopedia - is offensive to a great portion of the community. Paid editing is, in fact, seen by many as an affront to the project as a whole. The editor has been asked to remove the offensive "advertising", but has refused to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Disclosure of paid editing status is fine: specific advertisement (or just plain trolling) isn't. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - there is no current WP:consensus that such good faith policy driven contributions and or admittance and declaration of such are in violation of anything - Youreallycan 22:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "There's no consensus" has become far too familiar a refrain in these discussions. "No consensus" is not an argument to oppose trying to reach consensus. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, however - this seems to me to be a back door attempt to assert a consensus through a discussion of the userpage and is not the correct location to attempt to create a consensus for wider policy and guideline discussions regarding the community consensus about the broad issue of paid editing. - for which as I said, there is no current community consensus about. Youreallycan 14:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep You may think it in violation of those policies, but there certainly is no consensus that that is true.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • How is this not plain and simple advertising? If he decided to advertise his mail order bagel business, it would be removed in a heartbeat. Just because paid editing is heavily discussed doesn't mean that advertisements are allowed on Wikipedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Remove the advert or delete. I've deleted dozens, possibly hundreds of advertisements for legitimate services (nail salons to non-notable bands). Just because this guy's advertising a service which is really questionable doesn't mean it should be kept. Non-issue. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I see no difference between me advertising my business on my page and what this editor is doing it is an advertisement and has to go. Mo ainm~Talk 22:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Total and blatent soapboxing. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the blatant advert until discussions are complete. The current policy WP:NOTADVERT does not allow for advertising services on any page, including user pages. --Onorem♠Dil 23:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  How is this different from "User:Jimbo Wales" promoting Wikia on his user page? And his userpage saying he founded Wikipedia whereas "Wikipedia" says it was co-founded with Larry Sanger? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  Can you seriously not see the difference between "I created some of the most popular websites in the world" and "I'll write you an article for $1000, here's how to contact me"? One is a statement of an achievement and/or a description of one's occupation; the other is an advertisement. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, for two reasons. 1) It is either blatant advertising, or trolling, or, conceivably, both at once. 2) It is also disruptive. Cardamon (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it would be preferable to just remove the advertisement. Cardamon (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: My reading of wp:UP allows for material that is related to how the user edits Wikipedia. Even if this weren't related to Wikipedia, I would still consider it acceptable: from [1] a brief three sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine. Strictly speaking, this is four sentences, but given Cla68's extensive work, and I consider this acceptable, in proportion to the rest of his user page. Buddy431 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you interpret WP:NOTADVERTISING (a policy, not a guideline like UP) in this case? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Editors are given broad discretion to use their userspace for Wikipedia related purposes. While some may find paid editing distasteful, it is not currently prohibited, and informing others that you are offerng your services as a paid editors is clearly a permissible Wikipedia related purpose. Monty₈₄₅ 00:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - this is so obviously meant as a joke/trolling it's a bit embarassing to see so many users taking it seriously. The appropriate response here is to let Cla68 have his fun, he's not hurting anybody by doing so. Anyone who thinks this is a serious ad should read it again and then take a long hard think over whether that's likely. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a joke. Cla68's comments on Wikipediocracy don't indicate humor either. He says, "My statement was intended to stir things up a little by forcing a discussion on the issue of paid editing." His intention was clearly to spark this discussion, albeit in an extremely pointy way. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Cla68 has not violated policy with this notice. Whether or not it is WP:POINTy remains for CLA68 only to know in their heart of hearts. Whether he actually means to edit an article and bring it to FA for pay is also obscure. You could view it as an opinion. Or he could mean Monopoly money. Let's have a bit more WP:AGF around here. →StaniStani  01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep If it is related to the direct improvement of Wikipedia, then I do not see an issue with it and view it as an exception to the promotional rules. In fact, considering this ongoing RfC, it seems to me that it really doesn't violate the rules as they are stated now and some editors are trying to get it added to the rules. Silverseren^C 01:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe its a joke maybe its making a personal point, but its no better or worse than multiple user pages on Wikipedia. I suspect there are lots of better things to do on Wikipedia than worry about something as insignificant as this is.(olive (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC))
• Keep. The paragraph which seems to have everyone in such a lather is the sort of disclosure we should have from anyone editing out of any interest, whether financial or otherwise. And the only disruption is caused by the opponents who are shopping every forum on Wikipedia in the hopes they get a result that their prior attempts have not. Kablammo (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete...is it a joke, trolling or serious...none of that matters since it IS a violation of policy to advertise that you'll edit and bring an article to FA level for a monetary award. If Cla68 won't take the banner down, then the page should at least have the most recent (before the edit war over the banner) history deleted.--MONGO 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I do wonder how the Wikipedia:Bounty board fits into all of this. Silverseren^C 03:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If there was consensus to delete this userpage, the same logical would apply at least as strongly there, if not more so given the greater deference given to userspace. Monty₈₄₅ 05:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I wonder how WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fits into all of this. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 19:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Why punish the honest ones? Anyway, there is only one legitimate way to judge a user's edits, and that's not by motivation, but on their merits. If his edits are NPOV, no one should question his motivation, whether it be money, fame, or wiki addiction. B^e——C_ritical 06:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Remove the Advert. When someone posts a spam then we revert it or delete it. So delete the ad.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a completely different scenario from your run-of-the-mill spam which we've deleted consistently, because it links to improvement of enwiki. Joke or not, I couldn't care less if someone was daft enough to pay Cla $1000 if it meant we got another featured article; it would certainly be more valid content than 50% of the "content" that people add to this "encyclopedia". If it conflicts with WP:PROMO / WP:SOAP, then we need to change them. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Well, sorta. Except the other way around. The policy needs to be changed first, then we can allow these kinds of advertisements. As it stands, this is a violation of current policy. Feel free to start an RfC on rewording WP:NOTADVERTISING. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep As there is no agreement as to whether the policy applies (and if Cla is seriously advertising), I do not think a it could be validly deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Er ... we don't salt user pages unless they're permablocked or banned. I would have thought you'd have known that, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Cardamon above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete First: Personally, I have no problem with paid editing. More power to him. However, you're not allowed to advertise for personal gain on Wikipedia. Second: Cla68's clients would be companies or people outside of Wikipedia, not Wikipedia's editors. IOW, he's advertising to the wrong people. This makes me wonder whether Cla68 is being pointy or is simply trolling. Third, and perhaps more important, the ad is disruptive. It has already generated two lengthy threads at ANI and another at Jimbo's talk page, and now this MfD. This is time and energy that could have been spent improving the encyclopedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  That sounds like a good argument for summarily closing and deleting this MfD, not Cla68's user page. Nobody is forcing anyone else to be an idiot and waste time over a couple of sentences on a user page. Kelly ^hi! 15:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  The ad is the source of the disruption, not the MfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep-It looks like a joke to me, but even if it's not, deletion is still absurd. At the most, the advert should just be removed. The notion of deleting an an entire page of legitimate content for three offending lines is one of the most laughable things I've ever seen in an XfD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Should Cla68 actually get business from this, it directly benefits Wikipedia. Should he not, it doesn't really matter. Anyone who is not here to improve the encyclopedia should find another hobby. Anyone who thinks that editors receiving pay to reach FA status (which, btw cannot be done unless all of our policies are fulfilled, including NPOV, etc.) should get to work crafting a draft policy that forbids paid editing of all types, and the find community consensus to make it a real policy (word to the wise: people have tried before, and there was generally a majority against said suggestion, but, hey, consensus can change). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the page, or at least the advertisement. Our policy prohibiting advertising is one of the most central and straightforward principles we have. Closing admin should note the policy-based arguments presented by Kevin, Orenem, and others; many of the "keep" !votes amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. There may be grey areas in the area of user page use and paid editing, but this page is not in one of them; it's a clear policy violation. The first words on the page, in bold, are "I am available as a paid editor," followed by a rate. Advertisement pure and simple. -Pete (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: many of the "keep" !votes don't engage with the substance of the nomination. The problem is not what is being advertised (paid editing), but that the note constitutes an advertisement for a commercial service. No consensus about paid editing is required, to identify this as an advertisement.
  • Also, "WikiProject ads" do not set a precedent that applies here. They are clearly an exception, and they are designed to promote collaboration on the site, not to feed a private business interest. -Pete (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep because WP:ILIKEIT and also because it's allowed by our userpage content guidelines. I'm not buying the argument that this is somehow spam, it's directly related to Wikipedia editing. No worse than the Wikiproject ads that pop up around the project. Kelly ^hi! 15:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:UP & WP:SPAM, as the 'service' is improving the website. Take it up on the talk page of the user.--Otterathome (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep – The ad goes towards improving Wikipedia's articles. If the ad results in more featured articles or better articles, then we permit it to exist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Per {{wikipedia ads}}

  Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #263

  This is simply the flip side of Wikipedia:Reward_board since the advertised goal isn't to whitewash an unfavorable article but to bring it up to peer reviewed featured article standards. Posting a "willing to sell" offer price for a service is no different from posting a "willing to buy" price on the reward board. Woz2 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Invalid comparison. {{wikipedia ads}} are not advertisements for products or services, nor is any money involved, nor are they even trying to sell anything. They're basically graphic recruitment announcements. Comparing that to a blatant advertisement to sell labor for money is like comparing apples and oranges. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pffttt. Really? We're gonna AfD a guy's page cause he's "zOMG .. wait .. HONEST". Un-freakin-real. BW - I expected better, but meh. Cla - k dude, you made your point. Kin ya quit now with this dramaz"? Just sayin. — Ched :  ?  20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Ched. Whether you agree or disagree with paid editing, you're not going to stop it. The only thing else I have to say is remove the amount from your ad--that's tacky.PumpkinSky talk 20:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, per (olive, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep page, Delete advertisement. User pages are not to be used for commercial advertising. Resolute 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I think Wiki policy is quite clear about this. However, it would be more satisfactory if only the overtly promotional material is removed.
  Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I am shocked to see a userpage MfD of an editor who has done as much good work as Cla68, and saddened that so many well established users are voting delete. If there was clear consensus that a part of the page needed to removed, it would be removed. This is an abhorent misuse of MfD; this is how we treat users who have dedicated tens of thousands of hours (possibly even more?) to our project?? WP:MfD explicitly says "User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.".(it is bold) IMO Cla68's note at the top of his userpage is far less of a problem than the Reward and Bounty Boards, and the last MfD in 2008 was keep: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reward board; I raised these two boards again at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI#Statement by John Vandenberg and there was very little traction to reconsider this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the tepid response to your proposal at the COI RfC was less to do with merits and more to do with fora. I think it just wasn't dealing with the thrust of the RfC. Mind you I would entirely support an MfD for the reward board (it should probably be kept distinct from the bounty board, which is less problematic). --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, MfD is the only process to delete even a part of a userpage. I'm certainly not voting to delete the page entirely. I don't see how this is "an abhorent misuse of MfD" and I don't see what the reward and bounty boards (which I'm also not a huge fan of) have to do with it. WP:NOT is clear. Someone needs to rewrite the policy if this type of notice is deemed to not be a problem... --Onorem♠Dil 03:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This kind of foolishness is supposed to be restricted to April 1st. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: The bottom of the userpage has extensive invaluable information about improving articles. I don't think this is the right venue for trying to get the ad removed, if that is the sole objection to this page -- there are other venues for that. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Paid editing is clearly a thing to be watched as it can easily stray into a Conflict of Interest, but there's no clear evidence presented that there is disruption. To the contrary, with the list of FA articles already, I think this may be beneficial to the project so long as Cla68 is careful. Jesse V. (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I don't approve of paid editing, but there's no rule against it as long as it's done in good faith. People who are either employed as paid editors or are prospective paid editors should note this prominently on their user page, and I don't see anything wrong with stating what you're charging is as part of this - it's obviously better than keeping this secret or advertising off-Wiki. I'd be all for a rule against paid advertising, but that doesn't exist at present and Cla's user page is fine under our current rules and guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• delete as trolling William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• How do you know it is trolling and not sincere? Cla himself said that, while it was partly done to get a reaction, it was also meant to be an actual statement and he would be willing to follow it if he got a client. Silverseren^C 08:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Because he also tried to make money off of what he called "threats" earlier (see previous MFD). Seems like that's all he's interested in from Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• As we use to say on Usenet, YHBT HAND and I'll save people a google search and say it stands for "you have been trolled, have a nice day". Cla68, you got us, good one. Don't ever frakking do it again. Now let's just revert the page in question back to this version and move on. However, on the outside chance that you are serious, your terms are unrealistic. Seriously, $1000 bucks for a FA? I seriously doubt that any company who would pay to have an article created/edited gives an ats rass about GA/FA. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Revision Delete and Remove Advert: Remove ad then delete past revisions. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. If Wikipedia has really reached the point where an editor gets to invent a non-existent rule (have any of the people quoting WP:UP actually read it?), and then sanction users retrospectively for breaching said rule, Wikipedia is in an even sorrier state than I imagined. – iridescent 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UP is a guideline. WP:NOTADVERTISING is a policy, which specifically applies to user pages. Have you read it? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete unless advertising is removed. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising. The closing admin must consider that, despite how popular this discussion is because of the paid editing debate (or because Cla68 has a lot of wiki-friends and/or wikipediocracy.com cohorts who came out to support him), this user page is in violation of Wikipedia policy. No one has (or can) adequately refute that argument. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 16:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for, Scottywong, you might get it. And the unintended consequences of banning all paid COI declarations (even those without a price list) on user pages, and the subsequent loss of transparency. Woz2 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy the transparency argument at all. None of this is about transparency, it's about advertisements. No one is telling Cla68 that he can't disclose that he's a paid editor in a neutral and non-spammy way. He's not trying to be transparent, he's trying to sell something. And I'm trying not to assume bad faith, but if someone actually did pay Cla68 to write an FA for $1000, I seriously doubt he would disclose that to anyone. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A single piece of the page violates policy (and that's debatable). Would you delete an entire article because it had an unsourced statement?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The user has refused to remove the part of the page which violates policy. Either we forcibly remove that part, or we delete the entire page. I'm not aware of a procedure to forcibly remove part of a user's userpage (apart from just removing it and threatening to block him if he restores it), so the alternative is to delete the entire page. Note that my !vote above includes a contigency for if the policy-violating section is removed. Also, this is not an article with an unsourced statement, it's a userpage with a policy violation. I don't think it's debatable, WP:NOTADVERTISING is crystal clear that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertisement, which is exactly what this is. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. It seems to me that the information is very relevant. Woz2 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Look a little bit higher on the same page. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Just because it's related to Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not an advertisement. ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep In light of this user page being upheld at a noticeboard as legit, I don't see any problem with what Cla68 is doing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I've created a new userbox that is relevant to this discussion. Some of you may be interested to display it with pride: {{User volunteer}}
  

This editor is a volunteer, and is willing to write and maintain encyclopedia articles for free.

‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I like mine better: {{Paid editing supporter}}
  

This editor is a Wikipedian that supports paid editing and its contributions to Wikipedia.

Silverseren^C 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: The last part of the sentence is a joke that i'm going to change in a little bit. :P Silverseren^C 18:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it curious that you are insulted by the notion of volunteer editors who write articles without pay. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because the template has an insulting "holier than thou" tone to it... Anyway I put both in my user box and now I'm getting a huge flux of gamma rays. Can someone write a a policy on WP:MATTERANTIMATTERANNIHILATION ? Woz2 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I shouldn't be, but I'm shocked to see a user's page up for deletion - basically per John Vandenberg and Iridescent. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Remove A statement that one has edited for pay is informative. A statement including the price that one charges is advertising. This is advertising and a disgrace to the project. A claim that one can get an article to FA status casts doubt on every FA the editor is associated with. A claim that one can do it for only $1000 is a claim to either supernatural abilities or special influence. It is, in fact, such advertising, which is in the process of changing my view on paid editing from "Let's get decent articles ,even if people pay to have them written", to that view that it is inherently pernicious in a basically amateur project. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent of WP:BOUNTY. --NYKevin @856, i.e. 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep basically per John Vandenberg and Iridescent. Sad to see so many people I respect on what I regard as the wrong side of this debate. Sad to see so much time being wasted on it in general. Yes, I have read all the relevant policies people have quoted in the various discussions. No I don't think this statement breaches them. The closest I see to a reason to enact sanctions or enforce deletion is POINT, but I don't think this will fly in this case. Let it stay, the point has been made anyway. Most of us think the traditional latitude allowed on user pages, Cla's record of good contributions, and the advantages of knowing who is and isn't editing for pay, outweigh the arguments of NOTADVERTISING, SOAP and POINT. So be it. --John (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• DELETE It shouldn't come to this. WE have a policy already in place that prohibits advertisement, and we have sysops that are charged with maintaing and when needed, enforcing those same policies, yet, certain sysops are insistent that we jump through hoops, when a policy already exists (BTW - for those who scream "no consensus", take a long look at ]]WP:SOAP | SOAP]] your consensus is ALREADY there. Advertisments are not permitted. ).

yeah, delete this and salt it. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• 'head count is 32 keep and 17 remove/delete at this point in time - Youreallycan 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

* WP:NOTAVOTE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• No but as there is really no consensus about any of this there is unlikely to be one formed here over Cla's thought provoking userpage detail - and after over two days of posting - imo - we could close this now as no consensus - there is no consensus about paid editing - many users support it if done within policy - and there is no suggestion that Cla has done any policy violating contributing. - Youreallycan 22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and block the editor for an appropriate time frame - I'm thinking a month at least - for this flagrant violation of WP:POINT. This is pretty typical, pointed, and completely cynical and disruptive conduct by this editor, which is an recurrent and incorrigible conduct that should not be tolerated by the community. Fladrif (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment @youreallycan - WP:SOAP is your consensus. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 22:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:SOAP in my reading is focused on article space - Youreallycan 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment-Based on some of the above discussion, it may be worth a review of Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?. The idea of an MfD consensus mandating a removal of specific content without deleting the entire page is not without precedent. That may be the best-case ending here.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Controversial? Yes. Do I think the ad should be allowed? No. Against current policy? No. Worthy of deletion? Of course not. This deletion nomination is a bigger violation of WP:POINT than the actual page is, if you think about it... Carrite (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Paid writing is one area where Wikipedia policy says one thing, but some people are trying to impose an unwritten policy which says something else. Trying to delete something that complies with the written policy but not the unwritten one is very much POINT-y. Furthermore, it's obvious that this is not a genuine attempt to become a paid editor; it's a Wiki-political statement.

And no, Cla68 is not himself violating POINT. His page would cause no disruption at all if it wasn't for people trying to impose unwritten rules--that is, if it wasn't for rule violators. And rule violators are always responsible for their own disruption. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)