Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyberherbalist/ACN2


 * 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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyberherbalist/ACN2
This page represents a non-NPOV fork Content_forking. Additionally the author has a multi-year record for a given POV on the article. Additional other contributions are the creation of the page for ACN's flagship product.

See Talk:ACN_Inc. for further details.

--Meawoppl (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Viable notes for an article (and yes, I read the talk page). This doesn't seem like a content fork as much as notes for how to improve the page. I'm not saying it isn't some sort of bad business and if it is that sort of information deserves to be included on the article's page. The mere presence of this here isn't against WP:PG. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as within acceptable limits for sandbox use. Collect (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Longstanding productive contributor who knows what he is doing, but can he please explain why there is not a WP:COI problem here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is always a potential conflict of interest when an editor is maintaining an article on a subject of some interest to him or her.  I am an ACN representative.  I like the company, its services, and the people who work for it and with it.  All the same, I have been a longstanding fan of WP, and want to see that its contents remain respectable and neutral.  Yeah, I have contributed ACN-related articles to WP. Guilty as charged.  And I would like to contribute more informative material to the ACN article in particular, which has proven difficult, as most of the sources are the company itself, and some other editors have considered that too POV.  Even information from sources which were not ACN have proven difficult to include, because some other editors didn't consider that NPOV enough.  Whatever.  This particular sandbox page represents a mis-fire, as I have determined that I am not going to be using any part of it, however rewritten, in the future.  So, please feel free to delete this page.  I'll probably do any further serious sandbox editing on my home machine in future -- this is the second time my WP sandbox has come under fire.  Coulda sworn anybody could recognize a sandbox when they saw one.  Sorry for the editorial.  I'm just grumpy and cantankerous tonight. Mike (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject to author wanting it. Add header information revealing authors potential COI.  COI is not a binary innocent/guilty.  State you potential COI and then be careful.  Unfortunately, many editors are unable to do this, but I am well satisfied that Mike knows what he is doing and is acting responsibly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 21 May 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.