Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Floydsm8/FixIt99




 * 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 obvious attempt to spam and end-run WP:COI. Paid editing on behalf of corporations is not welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Floydsm8/FixIt99
This soon-to-be article is a product of paid editing, as evidenced from this posting on elance dot com. The elance seller, mscherenberg, is very likely Michael Scherenberg the current CEO of the company as stated in this article.

If you cannot see the posting, it reads: Develop Wikipedia page for our company and the owner. The content can be picked from our website and other sources. All content, examples and links will be provided.

The business is related to Remote Computer Repair. You may be hired for potential long-term work on writing. ''

This page should be deleted as spam developed through a direct link with the company itself. Wikipedia is not a place for one to promote his own business and we should not promote paid editing for private gain. Also, if this were to be entered into the mainspace, it would likely fail WP:N and WP:WEB.  Them From  Space  04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Reads like a complete advert to me. Other than that, back when I was a newbie, I came across a discussion about paid editing and came away with the impression that paid editing was never tolerated, no matter how good the article was. Nothing I've encountered since has said otherwise. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 04:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you definitely have the origins of the content correct. I wasn't aware that paid postings weren't allowed, and tried to make the article as Wikipedia-conformant as possible. Please confirm for me whether paid editing is "never" tolerated, or if there are circumstances under which it is. Also, are postings by a company employee/founder considered paid editing?

I did review WP:N and WP:WEB, both previously and again just now. Part of what guided us in thinking this might be appropriate was the posting for a competitor, support.com. The only references are to SEC filings, which could be viewed as external, or as promotional. If fixit99 reaches the point where it's doing SEC filings - a distant hope, at this point - might the company then have reason to hope it will appear on Wikipedia at some point? (And stay there, of course.)

I greatly appreciate your time in reviewing my page and am sorry if this has been a waste of your time. It's been a good education for us, from the school of hard knocks I guess, so thanks for your efforts, even if the result isn't what we thought we wanted.

BudFloydsm8 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See our conflict of interest guideline. Naturally, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting fixit99.com. Delete. MER-C 05:43, 27 January 2010 (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.